Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Ecuadorian Air Force Arava crash

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 as this seems clear enough not to continue (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Ecuadorian Air Force Arava crash[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Military air crash, tragic, but not notable on the global/encyclopedic scale. WP:AIRCRASH. Consider adding to Lists of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft Leondz (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sad but non-notable military crash add to list of military aircraft accidents!!--Petebutt (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into 2016 in aviation. Sad, but in the long run military crashes usually have negligible or no coverage after taking place, with no lasting impact. Even at the time of happening the media coverage is limited compared to civilian crashes. Brandmeister^talk 19:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable as the deadliest involving the IAI Arava. Mjroots (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Mjroots' compelling argument. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; lack of media coverage does not lack of notability make. DodgerOfZion (talk)
Keep - a developing story but already clearly notable enough for its own article. Blythwood (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The lack of media coverage in the English-speaking world of a crash that occurs in a Spanish-speaking one is a very poor indicator of notability; ethnocentricity and language barriers should not be mistaken for a sound method of judging notability. And why do so may Wikipedians insist that military crashes are not notable just because military aviation is inherently dangerous or non-commercial? This isn't a lone jet that crashed and killed its pilot; it is a transport aircraft carrying 22 people, all of whom died, and smaller civil crashes are considered notable. Big crashes with double-digit casualties are notable, regardless of who operates the plane. The scale of the disaster is what makes it notable. Mdnavman (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]
Keep - The deadliest aviation disaster in Ecuador in decades is pretty damn notable if you ask me. GWA88 (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mjroots argument - worst accident with this aircraft type. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 11:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mdnavman's argument. If 2016 U.S. Marine helicopter collision is considered notable enough, why is this one different? Sario528 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I concur with your point. I would just add that the U.S. Marine accident in Hawaii involved the destruction of two aircraft, where most accidents involve the destruction of just one. That, and the second largest peacetime, accidental loss of life to the Marine Corps in its history. Both articles are notable and should be maintained. Thanks for your well reasoned argument, Sario528. Juneau Mike (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- per GWA's argument re: the notability of this accident within Ecuadorean aviation history. Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2016 (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.