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 merge to LaMia Flight 2933. Consensus is clearly against a separate article. It is up to editors to determine what, if anything, still needs to be merged.  Sandstein  10:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the LaMia Airlines Flight 2933 accident[edit]

International reactions to the LaMia Airlines Flight 2933 accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not necessary as it is adequately covered in the main article for the crash Adamtt9 (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge To main article of the crash, no need to have several sub articles on this matter Seasider91 (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - no need for separate article —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reactions will highly grow durying this week, the original section is too large for the main article and therefor a support article is nedeed to add homages made by several sportmen and international figures such Pope Francis, Lionel Messi, presidents from different countries. It is based on
  Main article: International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown
  Remember this is the biggest tragedy on football history, a new section is nedeed. Thanks, Bruspek (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, this was of course a major tragedy for everyone affected by it, but no, it wasn't the biggest tragedy in football history. It wasn't even the air crash involving a football team with the highest number of fatalities. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Bruspek That was a passenger plane shot down over a conflict zone, carrying mostly EU passengers and therefore putting a heavy strain on EU-Russia relations. The inquiries and the need for neutrality within them were major political issues. This is a mechanical failure. The Pope prays for everyone and apart from those of Brazil, Colombia and Bolivia the reactions of presidents are as relevant as my own. Tooter69 (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, yes it was the biggest airplane crash involving a footbal team, we are talking about a full professional team killed on the way to play the final of a major continental tournament. Second,the accident cause was not revealed yet, in fact there are some newspapers in South America talking about the responsability of Conmebol. There are a lot of pieces to connect on the next weeks, it was a plane owned by a Venezuelan citizen, with Bolivian crew, transporting a Brazilian team that crashed on Colombian soil. Conmebol recomended this company to several teams in South America, incluiding the Argentine National team. The repercutions are so intense that Barcelona is thinking to stop allowing Lionel Messi to play with Argentina since he was on that plane 2 weeks ago when Argentina traveled to Brazil. I don't how much you guys know about S.American football but as an expert on the topic I assure you this will definitely have more repercutions. Thanks, Bruspek (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may well all be true, but much of what you say would not belong in an article about reactions anyway and none of what you say constitutes a reason to have two articles on one subject, which is the crash of an aircraft and the wiping out of a football team. A content fork has been created for no good reason - the air crash article is only 32 thousand bytes in size. YSSYguy (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not particularly relevant, as explained by YSSYguy, but let's get the facts straight. This crash killed 178 people, including a Soviet top-devision football team, and there have been all too many non-aviation football tragedies, such as those in stadiums, that have killed more people. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you maybe misunderstood what I want to mean, Chapecoense crash has more professionall footballers killed, 19 vs 17 in This crash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruspek (talk • contribs) 13:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - article is useless. - EugεnS¡m¡on 17:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. The material is certainly well documented. Later on it can be decided if it should be merged to the main article. In general air accidents are over covered here, which is probably because they are of such intense interest to people working in the industry and people who fly a lot. I average about 1 round-trip flight a year so I'm not so interested, but who am I to say. "Default to keep" seems to apply. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. This debate comes up every time there is a catastrophe and to be honest its pretty annoying. Can be adequately be summarized in the main article, and should not be kept as a separate unless something out of the ordinary happens in the reaction. For the most part it is not much different than how these governments and bodies have reacted to other tragic events. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's all mentioned in the air crash article in more detail than in the article under discussion, so really there isn't anything to merge. It is nowhere close to being "the biggest tragedy in football history", but even if it was, the air crash article is not so large that there needs to be a content fork either. YSSYguy (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - the article has expanded somewhat since my delete !vote but could do with a trim; and the air crash article is still not so large that we need two articles for one subject. YSSYguy (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now These tags always get put on these pages and needlessly so because the consensus is keep. In this instance it is not so clear-cut; the loss of life was high but there was no known malice and unlike say Charlie Hebdo, it is not an overtly political event. That said the reaction has been much larger than I would have thought and how much the reactions can themselves be regarded as noteworthy remains to be seen. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only time an article about reactions to an event is appropriate is when the article about the event itself gets too long and needs splitting. That is not the case here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - This is not like the Dutch plane that got shot down over Ukraine, causing more friction between West and East. All that needs to be noted is the inquiries, and the reactions of the football authorities to Chapecoense (like they have said that the team may be exempt from relegation for the next three years). It doesn't need a list of every world leader or celebrity who said a prayer on Twitter Tooter69 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait to this weekebd at least, in South America news are talking about changing the way clubs and Conmebol plan international competitions. Same thing with FIFA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruspek (talk • contribs) 19:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that's not how this works. Second, I don't think changes to international competition format falls under international reactions to this disaster. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to main article. The only truly "international reactions" came from Brazil, GB and the Vatican, all of which can be fitted into the main article. All the other "reactions" are just sports teams reacting with condolence, hardly a big deal. WWGB (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is not an international (political) incident where we could think about a separate article, and none of these reactions will be of any relevance for air transport safety. Wait some days and merge the most notable reactions into the main article. The one from South Africa won't be one of these, I hope. --188.174.106.186 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The section LaMia Flight 2933#Reactions more than adequately summarises this, and is in fact better than this article. Not everyone who tweeted about it needs to be mentioned. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  There is only one mention of Twitter, could you please be more accurate? Thank you. Bruspek (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most of the stuff mentioned in the article is common sense and seems to be not notable enough to be listed on an article. We should merge some of the more notable things with the article LaMia Flight 2933 and then delete this article.--KDTW Flyer (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Big tragedy in football history. 95.135.110.45 (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, of course it's a big tragedy in football history, but that has no relevance to whether a separate article is needed for the international reactions, and let's remember that this was just as much a tragedy for the non-footballers who were killed and injured and their loved ones. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While this event is a huge tragedy, it does not merit a separate article for international reactions. Basically all football teams around the world have been holding minutes of silence at their games as well as many wearing black armbands. It is also unprecedented for an international reaction article for a sports teams plane crash. For instance, when the US Figure Skating Team died in a plane crash the World Championships were cancelled and they don't have an article on international reactions. The World Championships being cancelled is a huge reaction. Furthermore none of the other sports tragedies have separate international reaction articles. Also minutes of silence, prayers, black armbands are not notable international reactions. Also as mentioned above none of these reactions are relevant for airplane safety.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's starting to seem that the main crash article has a better reactions section than this one. And a majority of the reactions that were on here before weren't very notable international reactions. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - no need for a separate article. GiantSnowman 10:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with main article The main article and this reactions article are not too long for them to warrant a separate article for the reactions. The information mentioned in this article is useful in understanding the main article, so merging the information will help with reading and the understanding of the main article. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still !merge after article improvements. Its sprucing up and minor improvements still don't make it lengthy and comprehensive enough to stand as its own article, but is still appropriate and beneficial to be included in the main article. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - no need for a separate article per WP:SPINOFF at the moment, as simply not lengthy enough to give undue weight in the original. Fenix down (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After a lot of work, the article not only was improved and added a lot of usefull information but also got its spanish version linked to the main article as it was done on this version too. Thank you to those who helped on this! Bruspek (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2016 (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.