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.
KeepWP:AIRCRASH generally speaks only about inclusion in airport, aircraft and airline articles. The accident involves the highest ever landing speed for an aircraft, a fact which is sourced to verifiable reference. As such the article meets
WP:GNG in my view.
Brandmeistertalk23:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Indeed. I thought it was just Unicode gibberish—all the characters have accents?—but teh Google
sayeth otherwise. I guess it just got transcribed wrong, or something, but the correct characters are still under there. Ignatzmice•
talk13:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment. The article is mislabeled, as its name gives the impression an accident happened, when this is a minor incident, at most: no injuries, no fatalities, no major damages to the aircraft involved. I don't see how this is notable.--JetstreamerTalk12:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)reply
I couldn't find English-language references, but the
2006 issue of Russian aviation magazine Vzlyot confirms the event: "31 декабря 1988 г. в аэропорту Одессы этот самолет установил неофициальный «мировой рекорд» скорости приземления летательных аппаратов - 415 км/ч, но, несмотря на это, оставался в эксплуатации еще долгое время" ("On December 31 1988 in Odessa airport that aircraft (Тu-134А) set the unofficial world record for landing speed among air vehicles - 415 km/h, but nonetheless [the aircraft] remained in service for a long time"). As such I think the event meets WP:GNG.
Brandmeistertalk17:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)reply
It is unofficial because due to obvious hazard it's not a good idea to set the landing speed records, especially on a passenger aircraft. As such no attempt to make it official was made.
Brandmeistertalk17:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Those are values, provided by verifiable reliable sources. Besides, there was an investigation of the event according to article's refs and measuring the aircraft's speed seems to be one of the key issues of the accident.
Brandmeistertalk18:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)reply
I did not express my thoughts correctly. You mentioned above that the record-breaking speed we're referring to is unofficial. Following this, what I meant to say is that, even though the speed values provided can be actual, the lack of an official confirmation for them entails that there's no point in keeping and article that is loosely based on unconfirmed facts.--JetstreamerTalk18:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Being official is not a notability criterion. As I wrote above, the record wasn't submitted for third-party recognition apparently because it wasn't the case to be proud of, otherwise those guys would have been considered crazy on international level. The landing speed was most likely confirmed during domestic investigation, which may be considered as official recognition. The confirmation by two aviation-related online sources is sufficient in my view, although there may be more RS.
Brandmeistertalk19:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)reply
The point of the essay is to get people to give reasons for their vote apart from just the canned "it's notable" (or the opposite), which doesn't really help anyone understand why they think so.
Ansh66610:45, 25 April 2013 (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.