Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 – Deletion endorsed – lifebaka++ 15:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) The criteria in the essay WP:AIRCRASH have significantly changed since the article was deleted. As WP:AIRCRASH is now written, I believe that the article would pass. Therefore, I believe that this particular AfD should be looked at again. I would like to ask for a temporary undeletion of the article, and a relisting at AfD for a new discussion on the issue. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] AIRCRASH is a project-space essay that has not been accepted by the community at large. Why should a change to its text -- by a wikiproject -- affect an AfD that was considered by the community? Wikiprojects don't get to write guidelines, let alone re-write them to affect the clear outcomes of past AfDs. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] The circumstances here are slightly unusual. When I wrote the article, it met various criteria under WP:AIRCRASH. Between the creation of the article and its listing at AfD, WP:AIRCRASH was changed, and the article fell outside the criteria, and was subsequently deleted via AfD. I accepted that at the time. This DRV is not a criticism of the deleting admin, nor of any participant in the original AfD discussion. Since then, WP:AIRCRASH has been rewritten again. My belief is that the article would now fall within the essay, as it is currently written. What I am asking for here is that the article be temporarily restored, so that a second AfD discussion can then be held. I have notified all editors who participated in the original discussion that I have raised this here, and they are welcome to comment on this request. Basically, the effect of the request here is Overturn and immediately relist, but this is not because there was anything wrong with the original closure, because there wasn't. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Wikiproject Aviation and the Aviation Accidents Task Force have been notified of this DRV. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] But only two editors in the whole discussion mentioned AIRCRASH -- one of whom !voted delete. So it wasn't deleted on those grounds. Rightly so, because AIRCRASH should be of marginal, if any, relevance at an AFD. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- It didn't seem as though the article was primarily deleted on WP:AIRCRASH grounds, but on WP:NOTNEWS grounds as well. The consensus at the AfD was clear and I believe that for the article to be restored we'd need to see a change regarding reliable independent sourcing, not just a change regarding the wording of a wikiproject-specific guideline of limited acceptance. Reyk _YO! 07:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict)The sources used in the article were Aviation Safety Network, Airfleets, Daily News and Analysis and World Aero Data. The Daily News and Analysis article is the one confirming the dismissal of flightcrew. The article was deleted before the Final report into the accident was published by the DGCA. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] (e/c)Keep deleted As was pointed out to Mjroots on ANI before he came here, only 2 users even mentioned AIRCRASH in the original AFD [1], and as previous opponents to aircrash deletions have often pointed out to me, simply citing 'an essay' cannot save/delete an article, so how can it now restore one? I didn't cite AIRCRASH here and the reasons I voted delete haven't changed, or rather no evidence has been offered that they might have by Mjroots. I also don't really see what actual criteria Mjroots uses to ignore the essay on other occasions, but rest on it so firmly here. MickMacNee (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment - The primary change to AIRCRASH regarding stand-alone accident articles is that there's now a greater emphasis on using the criteria in WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, and WP:NOTNEWS. What in the article meets those guideleines that was not apparent in the original AFD? Not having acces to the original article, I can't determine tht for myself. Also, has new information been released that further shows that the article meets those WP guidelines now? If MJR can assert that those questons can be answered satisfactorily, then a restore/relist would be acceptable. - BilCat (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] The release of the DGCA report over a year after the accident may put this past NOTNEWS. As had been noted in the original article, flight crew had been dismissed. The DGCA final report recommended changes to ATC procedures. Mjroots (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] ~~Endorse~~ in light of DGCA report info. - BilCat (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Overturn in light of DGCA report info. - Correcting my comment - I was confused by the non-standard "Keep deleted" above, and should have read the instructions first instead of relying on others' comments as my example - sorry! - BilCat (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Appears clear to me that the article was deleted by overwhelming consensus as a violation of NOTNEWS. For that decision to be overturned and the article restored, it would have to be demonstrated that that is no longer the case. And having scanned through the DGCA report, for me there is no significant long-term impact that would have changed the AfD result. _wjemather ^bigissue 08:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the Administrator's decision, which was consistent with policy and reflected the consensus of the participants, as shown by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124. Essentially, deletion review is about whether the administrator's actions were correct, rather than whether the outcome would be different now. What User:Mjroots seeks is the opportunity to recreate the article in a form that he or she believes would comply with notability guidelines (although, as others have noted, WP:AIRCRASH isn't a policy for inclusion, but rather a statement of form to follow when describing the facts of a civil aviation incident-- whether as its own article, or as part of an existing article about the airline, the type of incident, etc.). Recreating the article about Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 won't automatically trigger WP:SPEEDY G4, which (I'm adding italics) bars "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion" and goes on to say "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". One doesn't have to get the page "undeleted via deletion review" to avoid G4. For those curious about what the article said, or who want to avoid an identical recreation, the article was sourced to the investigation reports. The description was that Flight 4124 "was a domestic scheduled passenger flight in India which overran the end of the runway at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai on 10 November 2009. The aircraft suffered substantial damage. As a result of the accident, the pilots involved had their licences withdrawn by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)". The article went on to say, "The aircraft involved was ATR-72-212A VT-KAC, msc 729. The aircraft made its first flight on 18 May 2006 under French test registration F-WWEJ before entering service with Kingfisher Airlines as VT-KAC. Prior to the accident, an Air India flight from Goa was reported to have bounced on landing, breaking two runway lights. The accident occurred at 11:10 UTC (16:40 local time) when Flight 4124 overran the end of Runway 27A. Runway 27 had been reduced in length to 1703m owing to scheduled maintenance work. This was to take place every Tuesday from 07:30 to 11:30 UTC. The shortened in-use runway was designated 27A. The METAR in force at the time of the accident was VABB 101110Z 07007KT 2300 -RA FEW012 SCT015 FEW030CB OVC090 24/22 Q1003 NOSIG=. This translates to METAR for Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, issued on the 10th of the month at 11:00 Zulu time, wind from 070° at 7 m/s. Visibility 2300m, rain, a few clouds at 1200m, scattered clouds at 1500m, few clouds with cumulonimbus at 3000m, overcast at 9000m. Temperature 24C, QNH 1003mb, no significant change expected. No operation on runway 27A was permitted when the runway was wet. It was reported that a crew member and six passengers sustained minor injuries in the accident. It is reported that the aircraft will be written off as a result of the accident." The page then said, "The DGCA opened an investigation into the accident. As a direct result of the accident, the DGCA suspended the licences of six pilots, giving the reason for this that they had not followed strict guidelines covering landing on Runway 27A in poor weather conditions. The airlines involved were Go Air, Kingfisher Airlines and National Aviation Company of India Limited. An Air Traffic Controller was also suspended by the DGCA for failure to notify the pilot of Flight 4124 of the runway conditions. In response, Kingfisher Airlines denied allegations that the crew had acted improperly after the accident. They also claimed that the flight crew were not given information on the state of the runway before they landed." An information box was present as well. I have my doubts that this could be taken from WP:NEWS to WP:EVENT. I think that there should be a list of runway overruns to describe this type of event succinctly, and that without the irrelevant information in the description above, it would fit into such an article. However, there is nothing to bar User:Mjroots from pursuing this from a different angle. Mandsford 16:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse'. The rewriting of an essay doesn't affect that AfD. A new redirect to Kingfisher_Airlines#Accidents_and_incidents would be fine. Fences&Windows 20:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, per my reasoning at the original AfD to keep the article. C628 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review . This should have been done earlier. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Agree. Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. a relatively trivial accident with a few minor injuries "treated by first aid" according to the sources. This is below the bar of encyclopedic coverage in August 2010 and today also. Consensus was clear, the guidelines are clear. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. Clear consensus for delete. Comments at AfD by User:C628 ("resulted in long-term repercussions", "actions taken against several personnel") were unsourced. All sources in the article were news reports or data, not secondary sources making commentary on the story. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Suggest Userfication to allow Mjroots to edit based on new sources. This nomination appears to have been poorly posed. There was nothing wrong with the original deletion, but now there is suggestion of substantive new sources. If true, a re-write is required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] I am not in the habit of adding unsourced material! As stated above, the fact that people were fired as a result of the accident was reported in the Indian press, and the source for that has been provided. Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] At the AfD, C628's comment is the most persuasive for "Keep", but C628's comment did not point to the alluded sources. This was unhelpful to the Keep side of the debate. I see your comments above. I do not find that a source says that people were fired. I see a title using "derosters", but its "facts" are tentatively worded and I read no reliable evidence or claim of anyone even being reported as suspended, let alone without pay. Derostered the day after an accident sound like they are needed for the investigation. Daily News and Analysis reads as unreliable NEWS story, as it repeats hearsay the day after the accident. Every other source reads as purely primary sources (not evidencing notability). I don't see the sources meeting the WP:GNG. Granted, there is a lot of reliable information here, but there is not is evidence of continuing interest. If you could provide newspaper stories well after the event, or mention in a magazine or book about aviation, then it would be different, although I have trouble seeing it ever as a standalone article. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the AfD was faulty or inadequate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] As I said in my original post, the original decision was correct. my reasoning for asking for a review was that AIRCRASH had changed. Further coverage Aviation Herald covering final report in Nov 2010 (scroll down past first few photos). Flight Global coverage of review of runway operations as a result of the accident. Wall Street Journal coverage of classification of the accident as a "serious incident" instead of a "serious accident", despite this being against the guidelines for such classification. Times of India article on separation of investigation from DGCA to an independent body, partly as a result of Kingfisher 4124. That article also states the report was the first to be publicly published in India. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] wrt the sources for my argument at the original AfD, this mentions (and links to) the investigation, and this is about the repercussions for the pilots/crew. Additionally, the articles Mjroots links to above are evidence of continuing coverage of the incident, and the release of the investigation (including four seperate safety reccomendations as a result, one of which affects the landing procedures for the entire country) shows that the incident had a lasting effect on India's aviation. C628 (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Also, SmokeyJoe said that the source for the pilots being derostered was an "unreliable NEWS story," but I'd consider it reliable, it doesn't seem like a source of suspect quality, just because it's a news article doesn't make it unreliable, and the salient point--that of the pilots being derostered--isn't hearsay, it's something that was confirmed by the agency in charge of such matters. C628 (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Break The discovery of the classification of the accident as as serious incident instead of a serious accident against guidelines for classification, plus the subsequent separation of accident investigation from the DGCA to an independent body would now seem to fit DRV Criteria 3 - may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. Therefore I would ask that this particular DRV is now considered under this criteria, not that originally raised. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted per my comment at the AfD: Wikipedia is not the news. Diego Grez (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Closing admin's comments The consensus at the AfD appeared to me to be that this was NOTNEWS - the essay about AIRCRASH was not (in my view) the main discussion point, and so I believe that this should remain deleted. PhantomSteve/talk\|contribs\ 23:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Incidentally, my apologies for not getting involved earlier - although I have not been at work and hence had more time to do things, that has also meant more time for family things, which have been more important than Wikipedia! It is not an indication of any lack of interest, just lack of Wikipedia-time! PhantomSteve/talk\|contribs\ 23:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - wiki-project errata does not override established notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse — my experience is that where DGG cannot find a reason to keep/undelete an article, it is not worth saving. WikiProject guidelines do not have the status of policy or even guideline and do not override same. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 – Deletion endorsed – lifebaka++ 15:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The criteria in the essay WP:AIRCRASH have significantly changed since the article was deleted. As WP:AIRCRASH is now written, I believe that the article would pass. Therefore, I believe that this particular AfD should be looked at again. I would like to ask for a temporary undeletion of the article, and a relisting at AfD for a new discussion on the issue. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AIRCRASH is a project-space essay that has not been accepted by the community at large. Why should a change to its text -- by a wikiproject -- affect an AfD that was considered by the community? Wikiprojects don't get to write guidelines, let alone re-write them to affect the clear outcomes of past AfDs. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The circumstances here are slightly unusual. When I wrote the article, it met various criteria under WP:AIRCRASH. Between the creation of the article and its listing at AfD, WP:AIRCRASH was changed, and the article fell outside the criteria, and was subsequently deleted via AfD. I accepted that at the time. This DRV is not a criticism of the deleting admin, nor of any participant in the original AfD discussion. Since then, WP:AIRCRASH has been rewritten again. My belief is that the article would now fall within the essay, as it is currently written. What I am asking for here is that the article be temporarily restored, so that a second AfD discussion can then be held. I have notified all editors who participated in the original discussion that I have raised this here, and they are welcome to comment on this request. Basically, the effect of the request here is Overturn and immediately relist, but this is not because there was anything wrong with the original closure, because there wasn't. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Aviation and the Aviation Accidents Task Force have been notified of this DRV. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But only two editors in the whole discussion mentioned AIRCRASH -- one of whom !voted delete. So it wasn't deleted on those grounds. Rightly so, because AIRCRASH should be of marginal, if any, relevance at an AFD. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- It didn't seem as though the article was primarily deleted on WP:AIRCRASH grounds, but on WP:NOTNEWS grounds as well. The consensus at the AfD was clear and I believe that for the article to be restored we'd need to see a change regarding reliable independent sourcing, not just a change regarding the wording of a wikiproject-specific guideline of limited acceptance. Reyk _YO! 07:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The sources used in the article were Aviation Safety Network, Airfleets, Daily News and Analysis and World Aero Data. The Daily News and Analysis article is the one confirming the dismissal of flightcrew. The article was deleted before the Final report into the accident was published by the DGCA. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Keep deleted As was pointed out to Mjroots on ANI before he came here, only 2 users even mentioned AIRCRASH in the original AFD [1], and as previous opponents to aircrash deletions have often pointed out to me, simply citing 'an essay' cannot save/delete an article, so how can it now restore one? I didn't cite AIRCRASH here and the reasons I voted delete haven't changed, or rather no evidence has been offered that they might have by Mjroots. I also don't really see what actual criteria Mjroots uses to ignore the essay on other occasions, but rest on it so firmly here. MickMacNee (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The primary change to AIRCRASH regarding stand-alone accident articles is that there's now a greater emphasis on using the criteria in WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, and WP:NOTNEWS. What in the article meets those guideleines that was not apparent in the original AFD? Not having acces to the original article, I can't determine tht for myself. Also, has new information been released that further shows that the article meets those WP guidelines now? If MJR can assert that those questons can be answered satisfactorily, then a restore/relist would be acceptable. - BilCat (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The release of the DGCA report over a year after the accident may put this past NOTNEWS. As had been noted in the original article, flight crew had been dismissed. The DGCA final report recommended changes to ATC procedures. Mjroots (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse~~ in light of DGCA report info. - BilCat (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Overturn in light of DGCA report info. - Correcting my comment - I was confused by the non-standard "Keep deleted" above, and should have read the instructions first instead of relying on others' comments as my example - sorry! - BilCat (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Appears clear to me that the article was deleted by overwhelming consensus as a violation of NOTNEWS. For that decision to be overturned and the article restored, it would have to be demonstrated that that is no longer the case. And having scanned through the DGCA report, for me there is no significant long-term impact that would have changed the AfD result. _wjemather ^bigissue 08:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the Administrator's decision, which was consistent with policy and reflected the consensus of the participants, as shown by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124. Essentially, deletion review is about whether the administrator's actions were correct, rather than whether the outcome would be different now. What User:Mjroots seeks is the opportunity to recreate the article in a form that he or she believes would comply with notability guidelines (although, as others have noted, WP:AIRCRASH isn't a policy for inclusion, but rather a statement of form to follow when describing the facts of a civil aviation incident-- whether as its own article, or as part of an existing article about the airline, the type of incident, etc.). Recreating the article about Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 won't automatically trigger WP:SPEEDY G4, which (I'm adding italics) bars "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion" and goes on to say "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". One doesn't have to get the page "undeleted via deletion review" to avoid G4. For those curious about what the article said, or who want to avoid an identical recreation, the article was sourced to the investigation reports. The description was that Flight 4124 "was a domestic scheduled passenger flight in India which overran the end of the runway at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai on 10 November 2009. The aircraft suffered substantial damage. As a result of the accident, the pilots involved had their licences withdrawn by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)". The article went on to say, "The aircraft involved was ATR-72-212A VT-KAC, msc 729. The aircraft made its first flight on 18 May 2006 under French test registration F-WWEJ before entering service with Kingfisher Airlines as VT-KAC. Prior to the accident, an Air India flight from Goa was reported to have bounced on landing, breaking two runway lights. The accident occurred at 11:10 UTC (16:40 local time) when Flight 4124 overran the end of Runway 27A. Runway 27 had been reduced in length to 1703m owing to scheduled maintenance work. This was to take place every Tuesday from 07:30 to 11:30 UTC. The shortened in-use runway was designated 27A. The METAR in force at the time of the accident was VABB 101110Z 07007KT 2300 -RA FEW012 SCT015 FEW030CB OVC090 24/22 Q1003 NOSIG=. This translates to METAR for Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, issued on the 10th of the month at 11:00 Zulu time, wind from 070° at 7 m/s. Visibility 2300m, rain, a few clouds at 1200m, scattered clouds at 1500m, few clouds with cumulonimbus at 3000m, overcast at 9000m. Temperature 24C, QNH 1003mb, no significant change expected. No operation on runway 27A was permitted when the runway was wet. It was reported that a crew member and six passengers sustained minor injuries in the accident. It is reported that the aircraft will be written off as a result of the accident." The page then said, "The DGCA opened an investigation into the accident. As a direct result of the accident, the DGCA suspended the licences of six pilots, giving the reason for this that they had not followed strict guidelines covering landing on Runway 27A in poor weather conditions. The airlines involved were Go Air, Kingfisher Airlines and National Aviation Company of India Limited. An Air Traffic Controller was also suspended by the DGCA for failure to notify the pilot of Flight 4124 of the runway conditions. In response, Kingfisher Airlines denied allegations that the crew had acted improperly after the accident. They also claimed that the flight crew were not given information on the state of the runway before they landed." An information box was present as well. I have my doubts that this could be taken from WP:NEWS to WP:EVENT. I think that there should be a list of runway overruns to describe this type of event succinctly, and that without the irrelevant information in the description above, it would fit into such an article. However, there is nothing to bar User:Mjroots from pursuing this from a different angle. Mandsford 16:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse'. The rewriting of an essay doesn't affect that AfD. A new redirect to Kingfisher_Airlines#Accidents_and_incidents would be fine. Fences&Windows 20:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, per my reasoning at the original AfD to keep the article. C628 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review . This should have been done earlier. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. a relatively trivial accident with a few minor injuries "treated by first aid" according to the sources. This is below the bar of encyclopedic coverage in August 2010 and today also. Consensus was clear, the guidelines are clear. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Clear consensus for delete. Comments at AfD by User:C628 ("resulted in long-term repercussions", "actions taken against several personnel") were unsourced. All sources in the article were news reports or data, not secondary sources making commentary on the story. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Userfication to allow Mjroots to edit based on new sources. This nomination appears to have been poorly posed. There was nothing wrong with the original deletion, but now there is suggestion of substantive new sources. If true, a re-write is required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in the habit of adding unsourced material! As stated above, the fact that people were fired as a result of the accident was reported in the Indian press, and the source for that has been provided. Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the AfD, C628's comment is the most persuasive for "Keep", but C628's comment did not point to the alluded sources. This was unhelpful to the Keep side of the debate. I see your comments above. I do not find that a source says that people were fired. I see a title using "derosters", but its "facts" are tentatively worded and I read no reliable evidence or claim of anyone even being reported as suspended, let alone without pay. Derostered the day after an accident sound like they are needed for the investigation. Daily News and Analysis reads as unreliable NEWS story, as it repeats hearsay the day after the accident. Every other source reads as purely primary sources (not evidencing notability). I don't see the sources meeting the WP:GNG. Granted, there is a lot of reliable information here, but there is not is evidence of continuing interest. If you could provide newspaper stories well after the event, or mention in a magazine or book about aviation, then it would be different, although I have trouble seeing it ever as a standalone article. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the AfD was faulty or inadequate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my original post, the original decision was correct. my reasoning for asking for a review was that AIRCRASH had changed. Further coverage Aviation Herald covering final report in Nov 2010 (scroll down past first few photos). Flight Global coverage of review of runway operations as a result of the accident. Wall Street Journal coverage of classification of the accident as a "serious incident" instead of a "serious accident", despite this being against the guidelines for such classification. Times of India article on separation of investigation from DGCA to an independent body, partly as a result of Kingfisher 4124. That article also states the report was the first to be publicly published in India. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wrt the sources for my argument at the original AfD, this mentions (and links to) the investigation, and this is about the repercussions for the pilots/crew. Additionally, the articles Mjroots links to above are evidence of continuing coverage of the incident, and the release of the investigation (including four seperate safety reccomendations as a result, one of which affects the landing procedures for the entire country) shows that the incident had a lasting effect on India's aviation. C628 (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, SmokeyJoe said that the source for the pilots being derostered was an "unreliable NEWS story," but I'd consider it reliable, it doesn't seem like a source of suspect quality, just because it's a news article doesn't make it unreliable, and the salient point--that of the pilots being derostered--isn't hearsay, it's something that was confirmed by the agency in charge of such matters. C628 (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Break

The discovery of the classification of the accident as as serious incident instead of a serious accident against guidelines for classification, plus the subsequent separation of accident investigation from the DGCA to an independent body would now seem to fit DRV Criteria 3 - may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. Therefore I would ask that this particular DRV is now considered under this criteria, not that originally raised. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted per my comment at the AfD: Wikipedia is not the news. Diego Grez (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin's comments The consensus at the AfD appeared to me to be that this was NOTNEWS - the essay about AIRCRASH was not (in my view) the main discussion point, and so I believe that this should remain deleted. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, my apologies for not getting involved earlier - although I have not been at work and hence had more time to do things, that has also meant more time for family things, which have been more important than Wikipedia! It is not an indication of any lack of interest, just lack of Wikipedia-time! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - wiki-project errata does not override established notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse — my experience is that where DGG cannot find a reason to keep/undelete an article, it is not worth saving. WikiProject guidelines do not have the status of policy or even guideline and do not override same. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.