From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC) reply

VASP Flight 210 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a sufficiently notable accident to merit a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Airline accidents, particularly those involving a hull loss or death, are routinely covered by a single article. Minor incidents involving no injuries, fatalities, or serious airliner damage may be better included within the "accidents/incidents" section of the relevant airline. In this case, there was a fatality, several serious injuries, and so I think this is fine to include as a stand alone article. Distinct care needs to be taken when considering events or article subjects that pre-date the internet age. There is already some coverage included in the article, more coverage is likely to be present in paper materials not reachable through a quick Google. I'd be happy to see this kept for these reasons. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 05:28, 12 September 2022 (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.