Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Pakistan Army helicopter incident

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 merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present). There is consensus here that the subject is covered in multiple, independent reliable sources. The issue of contention is whether the event will be of lasting interest (per WP:LASTING etc.) or whether the existing coverage is merely part of the rolling news cycle. There are no compelling arguments in the discussion to suggest this is any more than a standalone one-off event, or has any more significance than the other article-less entries at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present).

AfD is not a referendum but for those interested there are 5 keep !votes to 8 delete/merge !votes (not including the nomination itself) so either way the outcome is the same. WaggersTALK 13:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Pakistan Army helicopter incident (edit | 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)

This is an article that was sent to draft during NPP and it was resubmitted via AFC and immediately accepted. This should be deleted for several reasons, WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS - we do not know if it will have WP:GEOSCOPE or will be WP:LASTING. Bruxton (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems like a notable, newsworthy event that is already attracting international attention. It has been reviewed as per the AfC process. Local and international news that suggests WP:GNG compliance to me:
  1. https://www.dawn.com/news/1702847
  2. https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/pakistan-says-army-general-5-others-die-in-helicopter-crash-1.6010673
  3. https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/pakistan-army-chopper-with-senior-military-officials-onbaord-goes-missing-balochistan-1982604-2022-08-01
  4. https://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-army-helicopter-missing-with-general-on-board/a-62678255 CT55555 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Notability (events) has the additional requirement of WP:LASTING RS interest or effects beyond the breaking news cycle. Military aviation accidents don't generally get this. Hence the nominator's WP:TOOSOON rationale at best. Again, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of WP:EVENT and it has informed my !vote. The lasting of coverage is impossible to know at this time. If you wanted me to absolutely focus on that part of the criteria, I would say it's too soon to delete. But I prefer to !vote based on all of the criteria, which includes WP:GEOSCOPE is, which is why I shared German, Indian and Canadian news. I don't understand why you said "again" because usually that implies that you needed to repeat something because someone wasn't listening, but this seems like your first comment here. If time passes and there is not lasting coverage, then I'd support deletion then. Until then, I see it like this:
    1. Notability checkY
    2. International attention checkY
    3. Lasting coverage Question? CT55555 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: No way to determine lasting when it happened yesterday. Exactly why I sent it to draft. The editor who moved it from draft should have waited. I checked their contributions and article creation and I was concerned. This is simply news, not encyclopedic content and there is WP:NORUSH. Bruxton (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ElderZamzam, I would like to point out Sarfraz Ali (Pakistan Army officer) was created the day after this article (crash). The crash gave him notability for an article, so saying a victim has an article gives extra notability to the crash article does not really work in this situation. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:24, 19 August 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.