Talk:United Nations Flight 052P

	Aviation portal This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
	This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Africa: Mali Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Mali portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mali (assessed as Low-importance).

New section

@Aviationwikiflight need help with editing and is this notable enough? Grffffff (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my searches, there seems to only be short contemporary coverage of the event and I haven't been able to find the coverage needed to establish notability. In addition, while a final report has been released, I'm unable to find any sort of follow up to the recommendations issued (which fails WP:LASTING).^[b]

Basically, most news articles date from around shortly after the accident happened, with the coverage not providing what we need to establish notability, and there has been no follow up since, in terms of coverage and changes made in procedures. This fails WP:NOTNEWS#1 which states that 'Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source, which is basically what the news articles are. All in all, in might be better to redirect the article to Gao International Airport#Accidents and incidents where it's already somewhat covered in detail. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

alright thank you Grffffff (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you wouldn't mind if I redirected the article? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no Grffffff (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.
^ In case you want a more detailed explanation, per WP:EVENTCRIT#4, # Routine kinds of news events (including most [...] accidents [...] – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. As outlined above, there isn't much that would give this event additional enduring significance. For the coverage, per WP:GNG, WP:WHYN and WP:EVENTCRIT, we would need significant secondary coverage^[a] and/or in-depth coverage of the event. None of the sources really go beyond reporting that the plane crashed and the subsequent reactions like this or this. Then there's this article by FlightGlobal but it's just repeating what Rosaviatsia released in a statement and there's no actual analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis behind it.
Even though the final report did contain recommendations, we would need evidence that these were actually implemented, so in short, we have no proof that the crash led to any changes and in summary, this article fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS.

[1] A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

[2] In case you want a more detailed explanation, per WP:EVENTCRIT#4, # Routine kinds of news events (including most [...] accidents [...] – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. As outlined above, there isn't much that would give this event additional enduring significance. For the coverage, per WP:GNG, WP:WHYN and WP:EVENTCRIT, we would need significant secondary coverage^[a] and/or in-depth coverage of the event. None of the sources really go beyond reporting that the plane crashed and the subsequent reactions like this or this. Then there's this article by FlightGlobal but it's just repeating what Rosaviatsia released in a statement and there's no actual analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis behind it.
Even though the final report did contain recommendations, we would need evidence that these were actually implemented, so in short, we have no proof that the crash led to any changes and in summary, this article fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS.

[b]

[a]