Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asiana Airlines Flight 162

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 snowy keep as no valid reason given for even nominating it for deletion. Meets no deletion criteria at all. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asiana Airlines Flight 162

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

WP:GNG, etc.. This just needs debate before inclusion, for all the usual reasons Petebutt (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no such "usual reasons" for such debate in WP:GNG. Can anyone provide statistics or overview about the prevalence of such debate for very new articles? Layzeeboi (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see significant coverage from CNN, NBC, WSJ, BBC, Bloomburg, The Guardian, three major Japanese news services (in English), two Korean news services... Do we need this make-work debate? Layzeeboi (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)+[reply]

- Comment Media coverage is WP:ROUTINE....William 10:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Somehow I don't think that coverage of a near catastrophic accident falls under that particular guideline. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There doesn't seem to be any real rationale for deletion at this time. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No comprehensible reason given for starting this deletion debate. Article seems to meet WP:GNG easily. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - insufficient rationale given for deletion. FWIW, the incident has turned out to be more serious that was apparent at first, especially in regards to damage sustained by the aircraft. Sure, the article could do with further improvement, but that is not the remit of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowy keep - Obvious airliner hull loss. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2015 (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.