Talk:Alaska Airlines Flight 779

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because 1. It is the crash of a US airliner on US soil. Under Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents the article is significant. The accident caused human fatalities, The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport. The people in the accident killed were employees of a civilian airline, and the crash was investigated by the Civil Aeronautics Board report. It also resulted in legal action. (https://casetext.com/case/northwest-airlines-inc-v-alaska-airlines), changing policy. As for the lack of secondary sources, the crash was in 1961, hence very few secondary sources are available online, but the incident was in the media and qualified for a federal investigation. There is also a version of the article on the Russian Wikipedia, and if it is significant enough for Russian Wikipedia being an American-based air crash, then it is significant enough for English Wikipedia. The crash is not a fringe topic, stand-alone event, or minor event; the accident was caused by an incredible error, setting precedent for regulations we have today. "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." Deleting this goes against "Don't rush to delete articles" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Lasting_effects)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And the cause of the accident was not like most, (pilot error), rather an unusual event of the lack of runway lights being on. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Geographical_scope). Plus remember, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents is guidelines, it is better to keep than delete.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Under (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4) this is not identical to the previous, it is translation of existing unchallenged copy on Russian Wikipedia. "This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies"--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

How did you review the deleted version to make that determination? - BilCat (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Lots of websites save copies of Wikipeda. Read the original here, compare to what I wrote;(http://www.rc135.com/0011/ALASKA_A.HTM) It does not fall under deletion guidelines G4. BTW, it makes no sense to nominate only the English copy for deletion give that it was the crash of an American-made airliner on American soil flown by an American civilian flight crew operated by an American airline. The current version is quite an improvement in word count and grammar. And deleting only the English version makes no sense given that it is formated almost exactly like the Russian language article, with some minor improvements. As for notablity, just read modern runway lighting laws, hence it started a precendent for change. And yes, the original should have been deleted at the time due to poor grammar, wording, formatting, and factual errors. But such errors were fuxed, hence your reason for deletion G4 has no merit.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for answering how, and I assume you reviewed the deleted article before writing this one. Other Wikipedias have their own deletion guidelines, so the existence of an article on another Wikipedia is irrelevant. But you generally can't restore a deleted article without going through Deletion Review. If the CSD fails, the I will take the article to AFD, where community consensus can be determined. - BilCat (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

But shouldn't G4 be removed because the article will be deleted automatically before consensus if reached? And the article doesn't even quality under G4 guidelines.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I read the deleted article. It should have been deleted because it was terrible, or at least seriously improved. As for significance, the reason the origianl was deleted (I read the discussion) was because factual inaccuracies about the details of the crash led to confusion about notability (if it was civilian or military). My point is that the G4 template should be removed because the criteria is clear that it only applies if the content was identical or nearly identical in the first place, it is not. The aircraft crashed landing in conditions that would not be legal today.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)