The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Ohrid 172N crash[edit]

2008 Ohrid 172N crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article was proded after talk at WP:AIRCRASH unanimously concluded that the accident does not meet notability guidlines. It was deprodded on the basis of reliable sources being present, but the user in question admitted that he wasn't wholly convinced himself that the article should be kept, just that it shouldn't be deleted in that manner. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. This is a general aviation accident. They happen all the time. No evidence that the crash will have a lasting effect. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable one of many general aviation accidents that does not meet aircraft accident guidlines for inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not at all notable, though of course tragic. GA accidents in Cessnas happen frequently, and there is nothing that makes this one notable. Fails project guidelines. Yes, there are reliable refs, but they at best indicate that this is a news item, and is not long-term encyclopedic. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:AIRCRASH (and wow I can't believe there is really a WP:AIRCRASH). JBsupreme (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I had considered suggesting transwiki to Wikinews - however, I recalled that the licensing details of Wikinews vs. Wikipedia preclude the transwiki option. Is there a template available that would state that the desired outcome would be to compose a Wikinews article without invoking the concept of transwiki? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know that there is, but I doubt that this even rises to the level of Wikinews, as it is now days old. If you watch the NTSB briefs, there's a fatal GA accident every few days, and it's rare that they merit news mention outside of the local area. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Akradecki is right. I'm very active on Wikinews, and familiar with the workings there. While local interest only stories are permitted, the crash itself is too old to qualify for news. For the record, however, Wikinews does have a requested articles page that should suffice for such requests. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sources strongly indicate notability. Is this one of those "insufficient number of fatalities" things? Let's evaluate notability by looking at the sources. Everyking (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyking can you please elaborate on why you feel this is notable beyond a typical aviation accident? It is unfortunate, yes, but this is really fodder for a local daily newspaper not an encyclopedia. Even one that isn't limited by the constraints of paper. JBsupreme (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look at the sources—that is emphatically not "local" press coverage. In any case, I support including anything if there's substantial press coverage to demonstrate notability. Arguments like "this happens every day" and "only a few people died" are meaningless to me. Everyking (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The deeper question here is whether a WikiProject notability guideline can take precedence over the general notability guideline. However, I don't think here is the place to debate this weighty issue, though it is relevant. Consensus (Consensus ≠ Unanimity) here is that the WikiProject notability guideline is applicable. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not taking precedence, simply being cited. Which guidlines an individual chooses to cite are up to him/her. It would be different if we were talking policy... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as air plane crashes are verifiable and notable not just for news purpose but for those who research the topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not news. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing news articles does not makes us news. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed it does not. Your point? Stifle (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • La Grand, the point is that there's a difference between a major event that rises to encyclopedic level and a minor event, with little more significance than an automobile crash, which is reported for the moment in the news media, but has little or no lasting significance. We don't report auto accidents because they're common place. So, unfortunately, are Cessna crashes. It would be helpful if you would explain why you think that this particular Cessna crash is an event that rises to an encyclopedic level. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because so long as it is verfiable and editors and readers believe it belongs here, the paperless encyclopedia should keep it. If anyone doesn't like the article, they can worry about and work on articles they do look and want to edit. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. No objection to redirecting to a mention in the airport's article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.