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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skyway Enterprises flight SKZ 7101 (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)

Non-notable cargo aircraft accident with no effects on the operation of other aircraft or procedures, very little coverage of note. Apart from everything else we have to draw a line somewhere and this article just doesn't come near Petebutt (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is established by references. This accident has significant coverage by reliable sources, please see this list. The list is incomplete because I stopped after 20. There are more. I plan to update this article as soon as the final accident report is released. Samf4u (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at that list and numbering from 1 at the top to 20 at the bottom, numbers 8, 12, 13, 16 and 20 are not reliable sources - 12 is a Wikipedia mirror site. Number 1 and 2 are Associated Press news wire stories repeated. Number 3 and 9 are word-for-word identical and derived from 4 & 5, while 6 and 19 are mirrors of 5; 5 itself is an air crash database entry. Number 4 is local coverage. Number 7 and 18 are the same URL; the story is based on another website. Number 10 is an air crash database entry; 11 and 14 are mirrors of 3. The URL for 15 is no longer valid, but I found the story elsewhere on the website - it is a database entry of four sentences; 17 is also an air crash database entry. So from 19 sources, 5 can't be used and the bulk of the other 14 are database entries or their mirrors and derivatives. There are effectively four brief news stories in that list, the database entries and the four news stories do not constitute "significant coverage", so my !vote is Delete. YSSYguy (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep accident with 15 deaths is notable Transasia07 (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This accident had only two deaths. - Ahunt (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was a fatal accident with substantial news coverage. The cause of the crash has not yet been determined/announced and may also be highly relevant. Deletion at this point would be premature at best. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is unusual for cargo flights to be notable and I dont see anything in this that comes above the bar. No reason why it cant be listed at List of fatal accidents to commercial cargo aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Cargo flight or not this is a hull loss with fatalities. "unusual for cargo flights to be notable" ? Please see this partial list of cargo flight accidents that have articles. Samf4u (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Samf4u I have struck your second keep vote. You are free to leave comments but please do not vote more than once. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 05:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that Yash! Samf4u (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An encyclopedias limit should have no bounds. If a person searches for this incident I'd like to have our article be listed first, with its proper references. Samf4u (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this article should be deleted than why are these articles OK? Samf4u (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who said they are OK? Anyway, let us assume that they are OK; this article should be deleted because other stuff exists. YSSYguy (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per Shelbystripes. This meets WP:GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shelbystripes' argument is flawed, there hasn't been "substantial" news coverage, there has just been many news outlets repeating the same three or four sentences. There could be 500 such news reports, that does not make the coverage substantial. Shelbystripes' argument is basically "keep just in case there is some good reason in the future". If there does prove to be such a reason, then recreate the article in the future. YSSYguy (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable cargo plane accident....William 19:27, 23 May 2015 (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.