Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Jamba Lockheed Hercules crash
1989 Jamba Lockheed Hercules crash: emphasis added for eyeballs for important part
| ← Previous revision | Revision as of 02:10, 20 April 2026 | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
*::I also added New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, UPI, and a United Nations report (specifically for a citation on the political fallout). The delete/non-notable arguments are clearly refuted, good work on the book sources. [[User:RandomEditor6772314|RandomEditor6772314]] ([[User talk:RandomEditor6772314|talk]]) 01:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC) |
*::I also added New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, UPI, and a United Nations report (specifically for a citation on the political fallout). The delete/non-notable arguments are clearly refuted, good work on the book sources. [[User:RandomEditor6772314|RandomEditor6772314]] ([[User talk:RandomEditor6772314|talk]]) 01:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
: '''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}''' '''Relisting comment:''' I don't think consensus is clear here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]♠ [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 19:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC) |
: '''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}''' '''Relisting comment:''' I don't think consensus is clear here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]♠ [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 19:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep - Emphatically'''. The other comment with new sources (books) is persuasive, and I also now added a handful of internationally renowned publications as sources. The nomination is not persuasive, since "did a google search and only found one source" is nothing like a convincing test: It's irrelevant whether a source is easy to find or is currently online and searchable. The relevant thing is whether you have reason to think that no source exists in the world anywhere. Misunderstanding of that point is currently an epidemic in AfD. Also, the nomination vastly understates the known facts of the event, since it wasn't just that some couple people died and it was going to UNITA, but rather that it was a preferred-coverup because of hypocrisy with recent diplomacy stuff (this is from actual US Officials who spoke to NY Times). This is classic lesser-known Cold War stuff. . https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/01/world/cia-crash-called-problem-in-angola.html (it's a very short article, but Significant Coverage is not about length, it's about not being a trivial reference, which that one isn't). The event was also in LA Times https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-11-30-mn-312-story.html but the coverage is basically "a plane crash happened" whereas the NY Times has a small description of fall-out, we also have a United Nations report on Angola that mentioned the effect of the crash in a line. |
*'''Keep - Emphatically'''. The other comment with new sources (books) is persuasive, and '''I also now added a handful of internationally renowned publications as sources'''. The nomination is not persuasive, since "did a google search and only found one source" is nothing like a convincing test: It's irrelevant whether a source is easy to find or is currently online and searchable. The relevant thing is whether you have reason to think that no source exists in the world anywhere. Misunderstanding of that point is currently an epidemic in AfD. Also, the nomination vastly understates the known facts of the event, since it wasn't just that some couple people died and it was going to UNITA, but rather that it was a preferred-coverup because of hypocrisy with recent diplomacy stuff (this is from actual US Officials who spoke to NY Times). This is classic lesser-known Cold War stuff. . https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/01/world/cia-crash-called-problem-in-angola.html (it's a very short article, but Significant Coverage is not about length, it's about not being a trivial reference, which that one isn't). The event was also in LA Times https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-11-30-mn-312-story.html but the coverage is basically "a plane crash happened" whereas the NY Times has a small description of fall-out, we also have a United Nations report on Angola that mentioned the effect of the crash in a line. |
||
:[[User:RandomEditor6772314|RandomEditor6772314]] ([[User talk:RandomEditor6772314|talk]]) 20:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC) |
:[[User:RandomEditor6772314|RandomEditor6772314]] ([[User talk:RandomEditor6772314|talk]]) 20:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
:'''Keep''' with rewrite. A Google Web search may not be the most helpful, since the event happened when the Internet was still new. There are plenty of other sources now. [[User:SenshiSun|SenshiSun]] ([[User talk:SenshiSun|talk]]) 23:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC) |
:'''Keep''' with rewrite. A Google Web search may not be the most helpful, since the event happened when the Internet was still new. There are plenty of other sources now. [[User:SenshiSun|SenshiSun]] ([[User talk:SenshiSun|talk]]) 23:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
