Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Karachi plane crash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 keep. There is a strong consensus here to Keep, with overwhelming consensus expressed from the community that the subject of the article is noteworthy, notable, and satisfies WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Karachi plane crash

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
2010 Karachi plane crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  1. Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Check.
  2. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Check.
  3. "Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Check.
  4. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Check.
  5. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Check too. Lugnuts (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. The reason for deletion is for failing NOT#NEWS (policy), EVENT (GNG equivalent guideline), and AIRCRASH (topic specific essay). Simply meeting the GNG criteria does not defeat that, because as you point out in No. 5, (but don't seemed to have understood by giving it a 'check'), passing the GNG is just a presumption of notability, not a free pass, it is not our only policy and it is not our only guideline. To give an example of how poor this defence is to the actual nomination, your run down of the GNG criteria here would mean every single thing on Google News right now deserves an article. Check? No. And your actual use of the GNG isn't that great either - in your copy and past of the 'Sources' criteria for example, you conveniently left out the multiple sources caveat, for which multiple news reports sourced from the same few wires/quotes, is not considered multiple sourcing. And from NOT#NEWS, when they all say the exact same thing, it is not considered evidence of significant coverage either, but is simply routine news coverage reflecting the relative importance to news organisations, but meaningless when considering the encyclopoedic importance. And on that score, yes, it is entirely routine that when an airplane crashes into the ground, all the people on board die. It is also entirely routine that every now and again, a plane somewhere in the world falls out of the sky. Infact in Pakistan, quite often actually. You've given no evidence there was anything unusual about this particular crash, and don't even seem to realise why the other article you cite is considered historically significant and noteworthy, beyond simple news values. Nothing about your insistence that this is not a routine accident demonstrates how anyone in ten years time will not look back on this accident as anything other than just another routine aircrash. You want Wikipedia's role to be an aircrash database? Or a permanent memorial to such tragedies? Fine, then go and get WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL deleted as parts of the policy NOT, which is, as a core policy, more important than the GNG all day every day. Simply meeting the GNG simply doesn't cut it for these sorts of aircrashes, not by a long way. MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It meets the guidance cited. Thanks for your input. Lugnuts (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. You can either read, understand, and reply to the above comments, or you can't. Don't simply make nonsense statements in reply and pretend they make sense, that's just idiotic behaviour frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does! idiotic? that's really stupid! Elmao (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it then, answer the points above. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. Thanks again. Lugnuts (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL specifically directs editors not to do what you did with that non-reply above. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a non-reply - fully citied policy that I've refered to, instead of your psuedo-essay. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "non-reply" refers to this, not your original response. To the closer - please note that despite what he claims here, this user has still failed to answer my rebuttal of 6 Nov 14:06, and thus the points still stand for consideration. Also please note that again, despite what he claims here, he is surely well aware by now (if he really cannot deduce it from the original nomination) that an essay is not the only reason for deletion. This fact has been stated and restated enough on this page already. MickMacNee (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to answer your rebuttal, as I've citied the policy this article clearly meets. Again, thanks for your input. Lugnuts (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say. You want to ignore the rebuttal, you go right ahead, it doesn't help your case in any way at all, infact it totally weakens it, as it shows precisely how you really don't understand the principles, policies and guidelines in play here, and why your opinion counts for nothing. And the GNG is not a policy, and articles are not required to only meet the GNG to be kept on Wikipedia, as is fully explained in the rebuttal. If you simply don't know that, you don't know much tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, please be civil - that's your final warning on that note. Thanks again for your input. Lugnuts (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And for the last time, this, this and this are all picture perfect examples of incivil behaviour, if you actually read the policy you are trying to warn me about here, instead of just trying to use it as an excuse/weapon. I won't be so melodramatic as to you issue you a 'final warning' to be civil in all your actions, but I will note for the benefit of everyone that this is now the second time you've been reminded of that aspect of civility, and if you choose to so blatantly ignore it again, your intent in that regard becomes harder and harder to deny. And for the record, if you look downwards, you will see that I am not the only person who has correctly identified your sole fixation on the GNG as a completely flawed rebuttal to the nomination. And P.S., instead of worrying about giving out 'final warnings', it would be a help if you could actualy make proper use indentation, as I am not even entirely sure which post of mine you are even referring to. MickMacNee (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per reasons above. Zbase4 (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??????????? What? MickMacNee is the one whose trying to delete this. Either your vote is delete according to MickMacNee's statement or Keep according to Lugnuts statement Zbase4 (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Once again, WP:PERNOM. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Tragic event and important news event. But not every crash is notable and I see no specific things establishing notability here... L.tak (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Truth be told, Mick, were I in your shoes, I wouldn't dare wave the PERNOM flag after having claimed "failing" the provisions of an essay to be a valid deletion ground. That being said, let's examine your only other citation, that to WP:EVENT. First comes the Lasting Events clause, which states "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Strike one. The second is Geographical Scope, "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable." This is an event receiving international front page coverage. Strike two. Depth of coverage? There's plenty of that. Duration of coverage? "However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." This is a crash that occurred two days ago, and it's desperately premature to claim this as a leg upon which to stand. Diversity of sources? A slam dunk there too. The truth is that despite your assertion that this article fails "most parts" of WP:EVENT, it doesn't fail any part of it as of yet.  Ravenswing  21:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You can ignore our only topic specific essay all you like, it hardly makes your argument any weightier. As for your reading of EVENT, it's pretty poor actually. A strike for the one bit it does meet, and ignore all the bits it can't/won't yet, without giving any reason to do so? That doesn't stand up at all. And on that score, you really shouldn't think that you can simply get away with asserting this has depth of coverage, when it simply doesn't. And as for diversity, you need to read up on what that is also, because you've got that wrong aswell. If you want clarification on what those passages actually refer to, try the guideline's talk page, because your own interpretations are way off. Like I said, fails most parts of EVENT. MickMacNee (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn straight I'm ignoring your essay, because frankly, declaring it to be a valid deletion ground is a facepalm to AfD contributors. Also damn straight I'm ignoring the bits of WP:EVENT that don't come into play yet. That "it's desperately premature to claim this as a leg upon which to stand" got past you as the stated reason, I can't help.  Ravenswing  03:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not 'my' essay, it was crafted by members of the Aviation project based what does and does not usually make a notable air incident worthy of its own article, so like I said, ignore it all you want, it hardly adds any weight to your argument, especially if you cannot offer any evidence as to why its contents should be ignored. As for ignoring bits of EVENT based on the idea that it's somehow premature to consider them, that is a pretty blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Per that policy, creation of the article waits for EFFECT to be met, not the other way around. We simply do not retain articles until they can meet all the requirements, quite the reverse. And given the fact that even news coverage of this incident has already dried up, your claims that this incident is going to even meet criteria like INDEPTH and PERSISTENCE in future seem pretty hollow. And waiting is not going to change the definition of DIVERSE either, which you seem to have sidestepped. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need any evidence to ignore your essay. It's an essay, and only reflects the personal opinions of the writers. It has zero policy weight. Secondly, your citation of WP:CRYSTAL is well to the left of farcical; that policy strictly, and explicitly, concerns future events. This is hardly a future event. As far as press coverage vanishing, 10 seconds search turned up over a dozen articles in the last 24 hours. Finally, I haven't claimed that this incident will meet INDEPTH and PERSISTENCE. How could I know that? More to the point, how could you? We have no idea one way or another. THAT is why an AfD is badly premature. Check back six months from now and we'll see.  Ravenswing  19:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said you can't ignore the essay (and have said so three times now). All I'm saying is it doesn't help your argument one bit if you do, certainly if your only reason for doing so is that it's only an essay. WP:ATA, where that comes from, is also an essay, but ignoring its advice based on the fact it's just an essay is not going to make any Afd argument sound very weighty at all, I'm sure you can agree. Or maybe not. As for CRYSTAL, I think you'll find that not creating articles prematurely is at the very heart of that policy. If you are not even sure that this can meet EVENT, then why even bother pretending you've rebutted the deletion rationale? Such a 'wait and see' vote is not valid policy, if it fails now (which it does even by ommission), it gets deleted unless or until it can be shown to meet it later. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was in the midst of writing another rebuttals, but sheesh ... arguing that we should delete an article based on an essay? Claiming that WP:CRYSTAL applies to events that have already happened? This has entered into the realm of farce; DNFT, and all.  Ravenswing  20:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your choice. The essay is not the only reason for deletion, but me having to restate that yet again, shows which way the trolling has been going in this sub-thread. MickMacNee (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 100% agreed with User:Lugnuts. nomi887 (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Closer please note that this is yet another WP:PERNOM vote. What I fear we have here is a case of Wikipedia:Follow the leader on Lugnut's statement abut the GNG, which, given the fact that it contains serious errors and ommissions per my rebuttal, and that neither he or any of the followers has attempted to even answer it, these votes should be weighted accordingly. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep notable event which has recieved coverage. Plane crashes are not ordinary in part of the world. Mar4d (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how it is notable, instead of just asserting it, preferably showing how the deletion rationale is invalid in that respect. We do not keep articles simply because they recieve coverage, nor do we keep articles if they are on unusual events. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Routine accident? whao! Elmao (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTAVOTE. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, WP:PERNOM and follow the leader... MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Doesn't surprise me that the nominator has completely got the wrong idea, again....♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, closer please note, this editor has not even given a rationale for their vote (except an attack on the nominator), and thus, should be discounted per WP:NOTAVOTE. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment MickMacNee, we know you strongly support the deletion of this article. But you are doing nothing to change the opinions of people here by replying to every single one of them with some policy which explains why they are invalid. Not only does it change nothing about whatever the outcome of this discussion is, it is really quite WP:POINTY. wackywace 19:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardly. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure what that is meant to mean. wackywace 20:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It means "I doubt it." MickMacNee (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the President of Pakistan, Prime Minister of Pakistan, the UN Secretary General or a famous actress etc, were on the plane? I can see were it would notable. I know this seems cruel, but I've never even heard of the crash, until today. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable? No. Will this be even remembered in a few years. No. Delete. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that user MickMacNee is fighting under many articles for deletion, so there is no point arguing with him. He also is/was banned from some sections of Wikipedia. From my side is a skip-it, let him to argue with himself, with his essey's Elmao (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And please note that I am not, and have never been, 'banned' from any area of Wikipedia. The accuracy of anything this user has to say in this Afd should be seen in that light tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Mm. You've got NINETEEN blocks for edit warring, incivility and the like, the most recent one a little over a week ago. For what it's worth.  Ravenswing  20:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For someone who supposedly abhors trolling, you seem to be desperate to engage in some yourself here. My block log has got absolutley fuck all to do with anything in this Afd. 'For what it's worth.' MickMacNee (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than shedding some light on your behavior for some startled editors wondering what the heck's going on, I agree that it ought to have nothing to do with it.  Ravenswing  01:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My 'behaviour'? You can just stop your sly insinuations and general dickish posts right here thanks. If you have a problem with my 'behaviour', you know what to do. For any user that is 'startled' by what's occuring in this Afd, they only need to read WP:AFD#How to discuss an Afd and WP:ATA to understand the reason for any of my posts. The first of those pages is infact required reading before even voting in an Afd, and the second helps editors avoid wasting their time making generally poor arguments. MickMacNee (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fatal and disastrous air crashes like this are not routine news events, but major disasters which prompt deep and thorough and investigations which last much longer than the initial news story. This event is every bit as notable as Air Midwest Flight 5481 which involved the same aircraft model. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fatal and disastrous air crashes like this are not routine news events" - Really? What is non-routine then about the news coverage of this incident? A plane crashed and the news reported it in the exact same way they would do for any similar event. This is not a rebuttal to a NOT#NEWS / EVENT deletion nomination at all
  • "major disasters which prompt deep and thorough and investigations which last much longer than the initial news story" - So what? The closer should note that every single aircrash, no matter how big or small, is always investigated (and yes, always thoroughly too!). This simple fact of life is completely irrelevant to establishing whether this crash is notable or not, or worthy of a stand-alone article on Wikipedia or not (unless the assertion is that all aircrashes are always notable? - this is not the case on Wikipedia at all)
  • "This event is every bit as notable as Air Midwest Flight 5481 which involved the same aircraft model" - Thirdly, so what? This is a complete and utterly irrelevant Other Crap Exists argument. Yes it involved the same aircraft, but that other article also has not one, but two, claims to lasting notability that this incident does not. This is again completely irrelevant to the deletion rationale. MickMacNee (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About the Per nom which I voted on earlier I was not following the leader but had no more reasons to add on to Lugnut's statement. Plus MickMackNee you are using WP:JUSTA, because you are pointing out what everybody is doing wrong, and should be avoided. Zbase4 (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • His vote is weak, and still has several unanswered questions about it. If you saw those, and still couldn't see anything wrong with it and just decided that it said everything you wanted to say, and you couldn't think of a single thing to add to it or in answer to the questions about it, then so is yours I'm afraid, per the basic principles of PERNOM and yes, follow the leader. And I honestly don't even understand what your point is behind your second sentence. MickMacNee (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yet another misapplication of WP:NOTNEWS. This is not Routine News by any stretch of Imagination. Its not that aircraft fall out off the sky on a routine basis in Pakistan. easily passes WP:N and WP:V. also agree with Lugnuts and Sjakkale.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it extraordinary news then? Don't just assert that this is somehow non-routine, prove it. The sources are pure routine news fare. Anybody can see that. "easily passes WP:N" is just more WP:VAGUEWAVEing. It counts for absolutely nothing. MickMacNee (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MMN you are the one trying to get the article deleted. the burden is on you to show that this article is about routine news, not the other way round. remember unless there is a consensus that article fails relevant wiki policies it stays. So far you have failed clearly, utterly and miserably in making an argument which is remotely coherent. I will once again say what I have said in many of of previous AfDs where you voted for delete. their is NO way in hell this article will be deleted. As usual you are on losing side of (yet) another AfD debate.--Wikireader41 (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, my deletion rationale is perfectly understandable and coherent. It really isn't my problem if you choose not to answer it in the correct way, and whether that's because you can't or won't is immaterial, the end result is the same. A small but policy-clueless consensus in and Afd cannot over-ride the inherent site wide consensus which is represented by policies. That's a simple fact which you never seem to understand in these constant claims of yours that 'there is no way in hell blah blah blah blah' at Afd. You said the exact same rubbish in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243, and guess what, your clueless argumentation was ignored in favour of policy backed points. Do you remember what you said? "let me boldly predict that there is no way in hell this article will be deleted". So seriously, why should the closer, let alone anybody else, take a blind bit of notice of what you say at all? MickMacNee (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If the closer or anyone else wants to know how clued up Wikireader41 is about the whole application/misapplication of NOT#NEWS, check out the unfolding debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's visit to India. MickMacNee (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. nobody here cares about what you say. calling it a "rationale" is a gross insult to the word. wait and see what happens to Obama article and this article. MMN would you care to list all aircrash related where you completely and miserably lost the debate or do you want me to do the honor. PS to the closing admin MMN is habitually on the losing end of debates in aircrash related AfDs. please ignore the rants here. This is going to be another of long list of air crash related AfDs where MMN artfully demonstrates his ignorance about how wp works.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is ranting here, it is you with this complete and utter juvenile playground bollocks, as usual. Afd is not about 'winnning' or 'losing', and competent editors don't give a toss about such rubbish. They only care whether someone is making a good arguments, or bad/non-existent arguments. And you fall well into the latter frankly. Oooh, you 'don't care' what I think? What, am I supposed to cry or something? Jesus Christ, go back to your kindergarten already. MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
really then why dont you enlighten us about your knowledge about deletion policy as it applies to Aircrashes and the results on recent aircrash AfDs where you !voted ??? I think it would be of interest that your arguments are frankly rubbished most of the time by the community. this article is not that much different from recent AfDs on similar crashes which have survived AfD nominations with flying colors. total and complete waste of time IMO--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can do better than that tbh. If you want an example of someone having their argument "rubbished" as you so ludicrously put it, then you need look no further than the very latest aircrash Afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 32. You voted "Strong keep clearly meets WP:N". Another pointless and clueless VAGEUWAVE as it happens. I voted delete, referencing the exact same policies, guidelines and essay that I have done in here. That debate ended 'no consensus', and the closer states "I think the delete side has a slightly better argument". So, let's just stop pretending you have any idea about the deletion policy at all shall we? You are still at the level of cluelessness where you even think putting 'strong' before your vote makes a blind bit of difference, as if the closer is going to take a any notice of that. That's the level of competency you are at right now. I will of course be interested in any diffs where a closer has "rubbished" any argument of mine in any Afd, but I think we both know that they don't exist outside of your imagination. Or better yet, you can explain how, if you think the community always keeps accidents like this, there is still not a single guideline out there that gives automatic notability to these perfectly routine news events. And the proposed guideline doesn't either. Again, the only place where a guideline is ever likely to follow what you think is 'obvious blah blah blah' at Afd, is in your imagination. If you can't see where some of those those flawed vote-counted keeps are going to go once that guideline is adopted, or where all these no consensus outcomes are going to go a year or two down the line, then you are very naive indeed. But I have to say it is down to clueless votes exactly like yours which is going to result in that guideline eventually being adopted, so you at least have some use around here. MickMacNee (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While we're at it, this comment left four days ago on Mick's talk page [1] highlights the WP:AIRCRASH essay (upon which he's relying so heavily) as a proposed guideline that's failed to meet consensus for a year now. The essay's talk page confirms this and includes a link to a new proposal, with the explicit intent of better reflecting the consensus of the community and the trend in AfD discussions. Given that this was out several days ago, I'm quite comfortable with characterizing Mick's continued vehement opposition based in part on the provisions of this essay to be in bad faith.  Ravenswing  15:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's take a look at what that draft says then, if you want any reminder as to what you need to start proving and disproving here, instead of pissing around talking about my motives and generally trying to talk shit about me, as a replacement for arguing the case properly. Here is what that proposal actually says:
  • "For an aviation accident or incident to be notable enough for an article it must meet a consensus for inclusion which is provided by a general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline (EVENT!) and a guide on the use of news reports (NOT#NEWS!)." - which puts the whole 'just an essay' nonsense being peddled in here into full perspective
  • "Most accidents and incidents are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article" - has anybody even come close to showing how this incident is different to most crashes? Not at all
  • "News coverage is not an indicator of notability on its own." - has anybody even attempted to show that this article is covered by sources other than basic routine news? Absolutely not
  • "Most accidents and incidents that have an enduring historical significance or have lasting effects are notable" - has anybody even attempted to explain how this crash will have enduring historical significance or lasting effects? Of course not
  • So as anybody can see, this article miserably fails this proposal too, because it is an article about a non-notable aviation accident sourced soley from a brief burst of routine news articles. Still, at least you are finally realising that the essay is not the only reason for deletion, so I guess that's progress. MickMacNee (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a section in my !vote to address this concern. --Cyclopiatalk 21:10, 11 November 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2010_Karachi_plane_crash&oldid=1146534570"