- 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 speedy keep. No policy-based reason for deletion, would probably be Snow kept anyway due to notability of event. ( non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 18:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- February 1982 Korean Air Force C-123 accident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Military accidents are generally not notable in their own right Petebutt ( talk) 11:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep over 50 fatalities is notable in its own right, meets
WP:GNG. Suggest nominator uses policy to argue for deletion rather than vague hand-waving. See the
precedent.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
11:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Over 50 fatalities" does not = "meets GNG"; not does the existence of a list for which the article would qualify for inclusion, as lists can and are suitable for containing subject and items that are, when it comes to having their own articles, entirely non-notable. However the policy concern re: the nominator is relevant. Pete, you really should know better than this by now. -
The Bushranger
One ping only
12:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't equate 50 fatalities with GNG, there was a comma, not an equals sign. The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Over 50 fatalities" does not = "meets GNG"; not does the existence of a list for which the article would qualify for inclusion, as lists can and are suitable for containing subject and items that are, when it comes to having their own articles, entirely non-notable. However the policy concern re: the nominator is relevant. Pete, you really should know better than this by now. -
The Bushranger
One ping only
12:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep although it is true that most military accidents are not notable we still have some exceptions and the high number of fatalities in this accident would make the accident generally notable military or not. MilborneOne ( talk) 12:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne ( talk) 12:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne ( talk) 12:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Nominator does not articulate a policy-based reason for deletion, or even indicate a specific issue with this article to be grounds for deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. 53 fatalities is clearly notable per WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - no policy-based reason for deletion. 53 losses in a military accident is actually far more unusual than the equivalent loss in a civilian crash, due to the rarer occurrences of these bigger military planes going down. It also meets GNG, as evidenced in the article. Why does this WikiProject insist on trying to delete anything that doesn't agree with its fairly narrow-minded guideline, regardless of if it is actually notable or not? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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.