Talk:Yeison Jiménez

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was merge.

Supporters of the merge cited WP:EVENTCRIT to argue that the event does not independently meet notability guidelines as an aviation accident. They argued that per WP:PAGEDECIDE the reader would be best served by merging the articles and that the notability for this event cannot be inherited from the notability of Jiménez.

Opponents of the merge argued that the death of Jiménez is in itself notable per WP:GNG and that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is guaranteed by the forthcoming accident report. Furthermore, they argued that per PAGEDECIDE readers seeking information on Jiménez's death would be better served by a separate article. The argument that "merging is for non-notable events mentioned in passing" was not considered because it ignores important parts of WP:MERGEREASON. Just because an event, in this case a death, is notable, doesn't mean that it needs its own article. In this case readers are best served by keeping all of the information in one article. In addition, arguments that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and that editors are being inconsistent in their application of editorial preferences are not pertinent in the interpretation of PAGEDECIDE in this case.

There is general agreement among editors that:

• The death of Jiménez is notable.
• The crash, absent a notable person's death, would not be meet notability guidelines and that the aviation details of the crash are secondary in the notability of the event.
• There is agreement that if the page were kept independent of the main article it should be renamed "Death of Yeison Jiménez". However, proponents of the merge argued convincingly that the content of this page would be best placed in the proposed destination article and that a "Death of Yeison Jiménez" article would be inappropriate per PAGEDECIDE.

Any editor is welcome to perform the merge.

(non-admin closure) ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

---

I propose merging 2026 Paipa Piper PA-31 crash into Yeison Jiménez. Light aircraft crashes are rarely notable per se (see WP:EVENTCRIT #4) and from an aviation point of view there is nothing significant about the crash. The only significant aspect of the crash is the death of Jiménez, and thus a standalone article about the crash is not needed. One or two additional sentences in the Death section of Jiménez's article would be sufficient. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

• Notifying contributors to the crash article: @Bloxzge 025, Grffffff, Jkaharper, JaxsonR, GWA88, Dreameditsbrooklyn, Abductive, WikiCleanerMan, Protoeus, Zaptain United, and Mungo Kitsch: Rosbif73 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree, because the crash also made part of his story since that is when he died. ~2026-24890-2 (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with the rationale given by the OP. 11WB (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose Crashes involving Wikinotable people as a rule have articles. WP:NTEMP cuts both ways - we don't have to wait to 'establish notability' if notability is already established, which it appears to be.

  This is similar to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2025_Aquidauana_Cessna_175_crash Zaptain United (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Relton66 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

We kept Harmony Jets Flight 185, 2025 Aquidauana Cessna 175 crash, the 2025 North Carolina Cessna Citation II crash and many others due to the one notable person being on board. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Relton66 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

• I oppose the merge. The death of a notable person commonly results in a standalone article. There are clear precedents for this, such as the articles on the 1999 South Dakota Learjet 35 crash (carrying golfer Payne Stewart) and the 2001 Marsh Harbour Cessna 402 crash (carrying singer Aaliyah and her entourage). The crash near Paipa, due to significant media coverage and involving a notable public figure, meets the notability threshold for a separate article, just like the cited examples. Shiningr3ds (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

  There are also plenty of cases where crashes are covered solely in the notable person's bio – but in any case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for or against deletion or merging. In this particular instance there is almost nothing to say about the crash itself, sources are purely news reporting with no analysis, and nothing indicates that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill general aviation accident. It seems highly unlikely that there will be any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE about the crash (rather than about Jiménez) beyond the initial news cycle or that the crash will have any WP:LASTING effects. Furthermore, regardless of the crash's notability (or lack thereof), the merge would be appropriate per WP:PAGEDECIDE. In the unlikely event that we do see in-depth sustained coverage, or if something unusual comes to light in the investigation, then of course the article could be re-created. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a policy. My point with the examples was to illustrate editorial consistency in treating fatal aviation accidents involving notable figures as distinct events.

  The core issue is notability. This crash is not a "run-of-the-mill" accident due to its immediate and profound cultural impact in Colombia: the death of a top national artist, the declaration of official mourning, and coverage at the presidential level. This meets the threshold of "significant coverage" and "lasting effects" in the cultural domain. Shiningr3ds (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

  In this instance, the crash is totally run-of-the-mill from an aviation point of view. The only significant factor involved is the death of a notable person.

  The cultural impact and the other factors you mention are indeed probably sufficient to establish notability, but they apply much more strongly to Jiménez than to the crash per se. This is where WP:PAGEDECIDE comes into play: even if we accept that the crash can be considered as a notable event, it is preferable to cover it in Jiménez's bio rather than in a standalone article. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

  Examining WP:PAGEDECIDE, which you are referring to, I find that the proposed merge contradicts several of its key principles, which states decisions must be based on "specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable" and not on personal preference.

  1. Standalone page best serves reader understanding. PAGEDECIDE states: "Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page." This is exactly such a case. A reader seeking information on aviation safety in Colombia, Piper PA-31 accidents, or fatal crashes of public figures would not logically look in a musician's biography. Merging the information buries it in an unrelated context, harming findability and understanding. A dedicated page serves a distinct informational purpose and audience.

  2. The rule explicitly warns against mergers due to "space availability". The text says: "the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability." Arguing to merge a notable event into a biography simply because it's "preferable" risks being exactly that.

  3. The "needed context" argument works against the merge. The rule asks: "Does other information provide needed context?" Here, the biography provides almost no needed context for the aviation accident. The context for the crash is the history of the aircraft, weather and investigation procedures — not the artist's musical career.

  4. "What sourcing is available now?" supports a standalone stub with a future. The rule advises that a short page with potential for expansion "is better expanded than merged." This is a textbook example: sourcing is currently news-based, but the official investigation by Aerocivil guarantees future, in-depth WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Merging now would be premature and would require a later, more difficult spin-off. Shiningr3ds (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

  Let me repeat: the crash is totally run-of-the-mill from an aviation point of view. If Jiménez had not been on board, the crash would not have been notable at all and the article would in all likelihood have been deleted (judging by precedent from similar light aircraft accidents). Your putative reader seeking information on aviation safety in Colombia, Piper PA-31 accidents would quite rightly have found nothing in Wikipedia about this crash, because there's nothing encyclopedic about it from an aviation point of view. Once we exclude that non-encylopedic aviation-related information, all that's left are a few details about the music-related context which would be best covered in his bio.

  As to the official investigation, that is not in any way a guarantee of future in-depth coverage. An official report will almost certainly be published, sure, and news outlets will no doubt pick up on that, but (again based on precedent from similar light aircraft accidents) it is highly unlikely that coverage of the official report will extend beyond a very short news cycle, or that the news coverage will contain in-depth analysis. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

  My position remains that a standalone article is the correct outcome per WP:PAGEDECIDE, precisely because of the unique confluence of factors you describe.

  Your correct observation—that the crash is notable precisely and only because Yeison Jiménez was on board—defines a unique encyclopedic topic: "The fatal aviation accident that resulted in the death of notable person X." The "music-related context" is not incidental; it is the central, defining context of the accident itself. The purpose of a standalone article is to document this specific circumstance in full, which is a different scope from documenting the person's life and career. WP:PAGEDECIDE favors the format that best serves the reader's understanding of this specific context. A reader seeking to understand how, when, and where Yeison Jiménez died will not be best served by a brief section in a biography focused on his life and career. They will expect a detailed account of the flight, the investigation, and the official findings. A standalone article is the only format that can properly structure this information with appropriate weight, using standard aviation-accident sections.

  The official investigation guarantees a minimum of encyclopedic content. Regardless of the news cycle, the final report will be an authoritative, primary source documenting the cause. This fulfills WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE by definition. A standalone article is the natural and organized place to archive this finding.

  Your hypothetical scenario ("if Jiménez had not been on board...") is irrelevant. He was on board. This fact transformed an ordinary aviation incident into a nationally significant event, warranting a unique encyclopedic entry. The purpose of Wikipedia is to document what did happen, not what could have happened.

  You evaluate the crash as an aviation event. I (and the sources) treat it as a notable incident involving a public figure. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, the best way to cover such an incident is a dedicated page. To make this clear and address the «run-of-the-mill aviation» point, I formally propose renaming the article such as "Death of Yeison Jiménez". Shiningr3ds (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

  You're right, my rationale above was based on the premise that, given the article title, we were considering this as an aviation event. I entirely agree that it is in fact primarily a notable incident involving a public figure, and would support your rename proposal if there is consensus to retain a dedicated article. However, there is very little to say about his death (particularly if we set aside the aviation-related details which you agree are not enyclopedic), and a dedicated Death of Yeison Jiménez article would no doubt remain a permanent stub; a single-paragraph "Death" section in his main bio article would be largely sufficient, in line with WP:PAGEDECIDE's reasoning that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic and WP:PERMASTUB's note that [f]or some permastubs, the best course of action might be merging them into larger articles. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for agreeing to the rename. I must correct one point: I never stated that the aviation details are "not encyclopedic." I stated they were secondary to the event's notability, but the official investigation report will be a primary encyclopedic source. I must note, WP:PERMASTUB is an essay, not policy. It cannot override WP:PAGEDECIDE or notability guidelines. Thiis article is the opposite of a "permanent stub." It documents a major event with guaranteed WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE (the official report). Its counterparts in other language editions are actively expanded, proving its growth potential. Declaring it a "permastub" now is a WP:CRYSTALBALL — predicting the future without evidence.

  You have conceded the event is notable and agreed to a rename. Therefore, the rational path forward is to rename the article to "Death of Yeison Jiménez" and allow editors (myself included) to develop it with the available and forthcoming sources. Shiningr3ds (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  We'll have to agree to differ here. I would support the rename if there is consensus to retain a dedicated article, but I still believe the best path forward is to merge to Yeison Jiménez § Death. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

.Agreed. To small of a crash to have an entire Wikipedia page In my opinion Just MRT (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I'm here because my opinion was solicited after an edit I made on the article in question. It looks like a decent, well-sourced, and thorough article in itself. Start class, possibly even C class. One recent precedent I think of is the 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, which killed Kobe Bryant, his daughter Gianna, John Altobelli, and six others. The crash involved one person, Kobe, who was already Wiki-notable, and latter two listed individuals had Wiki articles created for them the day of or day after the crash.

Even more recently was last month's 2025 North Carolina Cessna Citation II crash, which killed Greg Biffle. I believe Biffle was the only person on board who has a Wikipedia article, yet the existence of his airplane crash's article never seemed to be up for discussion. I think this crash's article and coverage would have great reference points for the coverage of the Colombia crash that happened this month.

If there is expanded notable coverage unique to the crash, then I'd support keeping the article. But with their being only one Wiki-notable person killed in the crash, I can see why a merging redirect would be warranted. But given the coverage it already has, there is a good case to keep the crash article. I'm not super-qualified to opine here, since I only know of Jiménez because of this crash. But if the information is full enough and verifiable enough, then I wouldn't think it necessary to take the crash article down. I was going to vote "neutral", but instead decided on "weak oppose". I think it is an article worth keeping, especially if there are details on the crash article that would be unfit or not as germane to the Yeison Jiménez article. Mungo Kitsch (talk)

• Oppose Enough coverage for a stand alone available. An AfD would be better to discuss this in detail. ~2026-40301-8 (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOPAGE. It makes no sense to split this single topic across two articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  The principle of WP:PAGEDECIDE (WP:NOPAGE, if that's more convenient for you), which you cite, does not mandate a merge per se; it guides us to choose the format that best serves reader understanding. As detailed in my earlier comments (1, 2), a standalone article under a title like "Death of Yeison Jiménez" or "Yeison Jiménez plane crash" is the format that best satisfies PAGEDECIDE's criteria for this specific notable incident. Shiningr3ds (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support: Light aircraft crashes not operated as a scheduled/charter flight by an established airline should be merged or redirected in my opinion. While they are unfortunate events within the industry, they are not notable enough to warrant a dedicated page. I am in support of a dedicated section providing a detailed summary of the circumstances of the crash on the Yeison Jiménez page. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  The airline and aircraft type are completely irrelevant. The crash is notable because of the Yeison Jiménez and the national response — mourning, riots , a tribute attended by tens of thousands. The article is fully sourced, including investigation preliminary report, and is not a stub. By your logic, the article on the 1999 Martha's Vineyard plane crash should also be merged into John F. Kennedy Jr.'s article, since it was a light aircraft crash with a private individual at the controls. Please actually read the article and the previous discussion before commenting. Shiningr3ds (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  An accident can receive more coverage due to a famous person being involved, however WP:NOTINHERITED still applies. 11WB (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  This crash is not notable as an aviation event, as you agreed above. Comparisons with other crashes are irrelevant, per WP:OTHERSTUFF. At best, it could be converted into Death of Yeison Jiménez, though I continue to believe that merging into Jiménez's article is the best solution. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  @11WB: NOTINHERITED does not apply here because the crash itself has received significant independent coverage beyond mere mentions in Jiménez's biography. El Tiempo and other Colombian sources published detailed articles analyzing the preliminary report, the circumstances of the accident, and the public response — not just "a famous person died". This is the exact same rationale why 1999 Martha's Vineyard plane crash is a standalone article: the person was famous, but the event itself was covered in sufficient depth. NOTINHERITED is about empty "he's famous so this is notable" arguments.

  @Rosbif73: I never agreed the crash is non-notable. I said its notability isn't primarily aviation-technical — because the death of Jiménez is the main driver of coverage. That's not the same as "non-notable". The preliminary report is a primary source, but it's also evidence that the crash itself is a documented, investigated event, not just a footnote in a biography. The actual notability of the Paipa crash stands on its own sources (I quoted above) — and you keep ignoring them.

  The Kennedy comparison isn't OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — it's a reductio ad absurdum of Frequentflyer93's logic, not a "keep because Kennedy exists" argument. If "light aircraft + unknown airline" automatically meant non-notable, the 1999 Martha's Vineyard crash article would have been deleted many years ago. It wasn't, because the passenger's fame and the resulting coverage made it notable. Same here.

  At this point I'm actually leaning toward renaming the article to Yeison Jiménez plane crash. It's more precise: the article covers both the accident (with details from the preliminary report and sources about accident) and the aftermath. "Death of..." is vague and better suited for cases where the circumstances aren't the main event. Shiningr3ds (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  I haven't been involved in this discussion. At the moment it looks like no consensus has formed. In the event this closes as NC, this AfD will automatically reopen. 11WB (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  As a former Flight Attendant who is also aware of many aircraft accidents and incidents, I stand by my opinion. My comment and opinion was not meant to diminish the severity of an aircraft crashing that resulted in the loss of life. I absolutely agree that this accident is notable, however, I agree with merging it into Yeison Jimenez's page under a dedicated section, which I previously stated. This crash of a light aircraft, while deeply upsetting, is not an uncommon occurence within the aviation industry, did not result in mass casualties both on the aircraft and on the ground thankfully, and won't be viewed within aviation circles as a major safety related turning point within the wider industry. When I alluded to the fact that this aircraft was not operated by an established airline operating on a scheduled or charter route, what I meant by this was that if it were, it would have a far greater impact regionally and internationally on commercial passengers and airline/aviation professionals. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Frequentflyer93: You say the accident is notable, then argue for merging. Those two positions are contradictory. If it passes GNG — and it does, per El Tiempo and other Colombian sources covering the crash itself in detail — it deserves a standalone article. Merging is for non-notable events mentioned in passing. This isn't one. I appreciate your aviation background, but this isn't about what the industry considers a "major safety turning point". It's about what reliable sources have covered in depth. They've covered this crash. Extensively. That's what matters here. @11WB: Fully prepared for that outcome, and honestly I'm genuinely curious to see which notability criteria you'd even nominate it under at this point. WP:EVENTCRIT#4? Doesn't apply — the crash attracted lasting attention specifically because of Jiménez, and that's part of the event itself, not a separate footnote. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE? Already satisfied — El Tiempo and others covered the preliminary report in detail weeks after the initial news. WP:PERMASTUB? Article is Wefully expanded, not a stub. WP:LASTING? Riots, departmental mourning, 14,000+ at a tribute — that's lasting impact by any reasonable standard. I've addressed every single argument thrown at this article. So yeah, reopen it. I'll be there. Shiningr3ds (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  The argument would be quite straightforward, these types of accident are WP:ROUTINE and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. 11WB (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  As much as I appreciate you want to keep this article, there is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV at all beyond routine news reports. 11WB (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS don't apply here for one simple reason — this isn't a routine accident that got brief local news coverage and vanished. It's a crash that killed a national-level celebrity, triggered riots, forced police intervention at a tribute attended by over 14,000 people, and prompted departmental mourning. That's not "run-of-the-mill" and it's not "and finally" material. Colombian media didn't just report it once and move on — they published detailed follow-ups analyzing the preliminary report weeks later (for example, El Tiempo, which I quoted earlier). That's WP:SIGCOV. That's literally the definition. You can call it routine all you want, but the sources say otherwise. I hope I’ve explained it clearly now. Shiningr3ds (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for explaining my point for me. The coverage is about Jiménez and not the accident, which is why it should be merged. 11WB (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  This will be my final response here, just to add. I would suggest allowing others to come upon their own conclusions now, as you risk WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion otherwise. 11WB (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  It seems this discussion isn't going to produce anything substantive at this point. I've provided specific sources that analyze the preliminary report of the crash itself, not just Jiménez's biography. You've repeatedly ignored them. You're right about WP:BLUDGEONING, so this will be my last message in this thread. If you need to reach me, use my talk page. I just hope that the administrator drawing conclusions will make balanced judgments based on reading the arguments I provided. My position is clearly stated. I'm fully prepared for a potential AfD relist — the article will stand on the same sources. I filed a WP:CR request a few days ago because I believed consensus had shifted toward keeping the article. Clearly, that's not the case. I'll wait for an impartial close. Shiningr3ds (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  To clarify, the reason I supported the merger is because I deem it notable. If I didn't, I would have suggested deleting it. I just didn't think it was notable enough to warrant a standalone page. I wanted to throw my hat in the ring; however, whatever the outcome, I will feel the correct decision was made based on the discussion. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think this should be no consensus. I don't think consensus has been given from either side since this is really split right now. Zaptain United (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support merge per above. The crash is notable for who was on it, not for any other reason, and there aren't sufficient things to say about it separate from what can be summarised in that individual's article. Clear WP:NOPAGE scenario.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support merge per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. All sources simply narrate the event without providing anything beyond that. One month on, there has yet to be any in-depth coverage. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that 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, which this event lacks. In the event that the plane crash receives the necessary coverage, an article could be recreated/restored, but I feel that under WP:PAGEDECIDE, it is best covered here. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per above. Also can we come up with a consensus, this discussion has been up for over a month now. Megabyte21 (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Can't wait to see this still up by 2030. Megabyte21 (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  Hopefully by then you'll have learned to express your position with better arguments :) Shiningr3ds (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Observation: Should this discussion be closed as no consensus? Frequentflyer93 (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  Not going to answer one way or the other as I've voted here, but if this does close as anything other than a merge, this AfD will automatically reopen. 11WB (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I request a review of the closure of the merge discussion for "2026 Paipa Piper PA-31 crash".

1. The closing statement claims that merge supporters "argued convincingly", yet a review of the discussion shows no such thing. Their arguments consisted entirely of repeating "routine aviation accident", copy-pasting "WP:NOTINHERITED", and insisting there was "no secondary coverage" while systematically ignoring the sources I provided. Meanwhile, the keep side presented independent Colombian media sources (El Tiempo, Portafolio) that analyzed the crash itself — not just Jiménez's biography — documented lasting effects including riots and a tribute with 14,000 attendees, and directly addressed why WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply when the crash and the death are the same event. The closer simply counted votes and called it consensus, which violates WP:CONSENSUS.

2. The closing statement asserts that there is "general agreement" the crash itself is not notable. This ignores that the crash is inseparable from Jiménez's death — it is the event that killed him. The same "logic" would require merging the 1999 Martha's Vineyard plane crash into John F. Kennedy Jr.'s article, yet that article has stood for decades because the event involving a notable figure is itself notable. The cultural impact — nationwide mourning, police intervention at a tribute, official statements at the presidential level — demonstrates WP:LASTING effects that belong to the crash, not just to Jiménez's biography.

3. The decision was made prematurely. The discussion repeatedly featured claims that there would be "no in-depth coverage" and that the preliminary report would not generate sustained interest. Yet sources published weeks before the closure — including El Tiempo's detailed analysis of the preliminary report, expert commentary in Infobae, and coverage in Blu Radio and Noticias Caracol — already proved otherwise. These sources demonstrate that the crash received the very type of continued, analytical coverage that merge supporters insisted would never appear. The article was not a permastub but a developing page with guaranteed future content.

4. The closer ignored my detailed analysis of WP:PAGEDECIDE (see my comment from 13 January 2026, 13:58 UTC), which demonstrated that a standalone article better serves reader understanding, that merging risks violating the "space availability" principle, that the biography provides no needed context for the aviation details, and that the article has clear expansion potential. The closer did not address any of these points, simply asserting that merge supporters "argued convincingly" without engaging with the counterarguments. This is not a proper closure.

I request that the closure be reviewed and the article restored to its standalone status, or at minimum sent back for a new discussion where the actual sources can be properly weighed. Shiningr3ds (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Notification for participants involved in the previous discussion: @Rosbif73, @11WB, @Aviationwikiflight, @Frequentflyer93, @Megabyte21, @Amakuru, @Cbl62, @Thebiguglyalien, @Just MRT, @~2026-24890-2, @Relton66, @Mungo Kitsch, @~2026-40301-8, @Bloxzge 025 Shiningr3ds (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural close: The close statement accurately reflected the discussion and its consensus. There is no point in going back over the same points, especially when it took months to get to a consensus in the first place. This new discussion should be procedurally closed. 11WB (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  If we're talking about general agreement — multiple participants (Zaptain United, Frequentflyer93) explicitly suggested that the only honest outcome was no consensus. Shiningr3ds (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  It's a tad ridiculous to open a merge review only six days after the proposal is closed. Majority aside, @ScrubbedFalcon went over all the arguments that were made and this was the result of the two month long discussion. Wikipedia reached consensus, whilst I try to AGF, this feels like an attempt to overturn a close simply because it doesn't align with a minority view. That's not how Wikipedia works. 11WB (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  It's also disingenuous to cite those comments, as they were made before several more supports were left before that discussion formally closed. 11WB (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  You keep saying the closer "went over all the arguments" — but he ignored my entire WP:PAGEDECIDE breakdown (four specific points, 13 January). Didn't mention it, didn't address it. That's not "going over arguments", that's cherry-picking.

  The six‑day gap doesn't matter. I opened this because the event's notability is obvious — I already laid it out with sources that prove in-depth coverage exists . If you want to engage with those sources or the WP:PAGEDECIDE points, go ahead. If not, you're just repeating "consensus" without substance. Shiningr3ds (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  That is not correct. 'They argued that per WP:PAGEDECIDE the reader would be best served by merging the articles and that the notability for this event cannot be inherited from the notability of Jiménez.' 11WB (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Read the sources I linked in the review request. They cover the crash itself, not just Jiménez — and they were already in the discussion before the close. Shiningr3ds (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think I'm going to invoke WP:COAL. 11WB (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  You're welcome to step back. I'll continue engaging with anyone willing to address the actual sources and policy points I've laid out. Shiningr3ds (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'll reply to others if I feel it necessary. Any discussion we have regarding this however will end up achieving nothing except WP:BLUDGEONING. I don't expect this discussion to remain open long anyway. 11WB (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• I've added categories back to the redirect page to alleviate any navigational concerns. The crash can now be found in all of those categories, which will then take the reader to the main article here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• I'm not aware of a formal merge review process (comparable to WP:DRV and WP:MRV), but if there were, I'd expect a clear endorse result: the close is a fair and accurate reflection of the discussion. As to the path forward, any editor is free to expand the crash and death section of the article, and conceivably to propose a split in the future if the amount of new content warrants it. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  "Accurate reflection"? The closer claimed merge supporters "argued convincingly" — but they didn't engage with a single source I provided. El Tiempo, Infobae, Blu Radio — all analyzing the crash itself, not just Jiménez. You yourself, after weeks of back-and-forth, ended with "agree to disagree" — which is exactly why this should have been no consensus. Now you're calling an ignore-all-the-sources closure "accurate"? Come on. If you're going to defend this, at least address the sources, not just the closer's summary. Shiningr3ds (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Per WP:MERGEREVIEW the formal venue for challenging closures not specifically covered by other venues (e.g. WP:DRV, WP:MRV, WP:XRV) is to file the appeal at WP:AN.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware of the exact venue — thanks for the heads-up. If this needs to move to AN, I'm fine with that. Shiningr3ds (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Would it be a good idea to c/p this discussion to that noticeboard? Or is the notice that @TBUA posted there enough? Either way, this needs to be followed: 'Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself.' 11WB (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  I guess if we want to dot our Is, cross our Ts and handle the challenge according to procedure, then having it there is the correct way forward. As Rosbif73 mentions though, this does seem like rather a pointless exercise – the close was explained in detail and with my biased specs on there does seem to be a solid consensus. The OP might benefit from a read of WP:DROPTHESTICK here before pursuing this any further. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Disruptive editing is a quite severe thing to cite. I vehemently disagree with their position, but I don't think @Shiningr3ds is intentionally trying to be disruptive here. 11WB (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  That's a generous take. Appreciate it. Still doesn't change the fact that not a single merge supporter engaged with the sources I provided — including you. But sure, let's call it passion, not disruption. Shiningr3ds (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  You may want to read this. 11WB (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  The discussion already had El Tiempo, Infobae, and Blu Radio — multiple independent sources analyzing the crash. If that's not SIGCOV, I don't know what is. Shiningr3ds (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  My intention was not at all to imply disruption by Shiningr3ds and please accept my apologies if I inadvertently implied that. I've been on WP a long time and I've always viewed WP:DROPTHESTICK as a piece of friendly advice to any editor who's recently "won" or "lost" a discussion through consensus, which of course they can take or leave as they see fit. The link to WP:Disruptive editing was seemingly added quite recently, and without any discussion, so I've reverted that. The essay is just about recognising when a discussion has run its course, not about whether it's disruptive to continue discussiong it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  No worries, @Amakuru. I only bring it up as I was also recently accused as such by an administrator. It did not leave me feeling very good and was part of the reason why I requested the removal of my permissions, and ultimately moved away from NPP as a whole. For certain editors, including myself, to be labelled as a disruptive editor can be a very heavy demotivator. (I've been advised not to specify if editors are administrators or not, but I feel it can be even heavier as an administrator is obviously a respected editor by consensus). This was a tangent, but I felt the need to explain why I responded in the way I did. 11WB (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Amakuru, no problem. Shiningr3ds (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• By the way, the closer explicitly states: "Just because an event, in this case a death, is notable, doesn't mean that it needs its own article." That's not how notability guidelines work. If a topic meets GNG, it's presumed suitable for a standalone article. This wasn't a policy-based close; it was a headcount dressed up as one. Shiningr3ds (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  That is exactly what WP:PAGEDECIDE is about: deciding whether a notable topic, potentially suitable for a standalone article, might be better covered as a subtopic in some other article. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  I already explained in detail why WP:PAGEDECIDE supports a standalone article — better reader understanding, no space concerns, no relevant context in the biography, clear expansion potential. Shiningr3ds (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  With all due respect @Shiningr3ds, you are already violating the quote I left here. A merge review is not for going over the same arguments already discussed at the proposal, it is to discuss the close itself. I think it has been established now that there is nothing wrong with the close, and the only one that is arguing the point is yourself. 11WB (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  The closer disagreed with you did not find consensus for that point of view – and it was a perfectly reasonable policy-based close (PAGEDECIDE being part of WP:N). As 11WB points out, we're not here to rehash the discussion. And as I pointed out above, if it subsequently turns out that there really is enough expansion potential, nothing is to stop you proposing a split at a later date. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  You keep telling me not to rehash arguments, yet you keep repeating the same ones without addressing mine.

  I'm not rehashing the arguments. I'm pointing out that the closer ignored them entirely. The closer simply paraphrased the merge side and called it a day. That's not a "reasonable policy-based close" — it's a selective summary. If the close had actually engaged with what I wrote, we wouldn't be here. But it didn't. That's the problem. Shiningr3ds (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  You really should WP:AGF on the part of the closer, who assuredly considered your point of view but found that it did not represent consensus. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  My detailed policy breakdown and sources weren't even mentioned in the close. That's not "considering and disagreeing" — that's ignoring. Shiningr3ds (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  If we consider all the options here that could be attempted to restore the article at this time:

  • Re-create the article in mainspace: It would quickly be speedy deleted per WP:G4.
  • Challenge the merge consensus: Would likely be procedurally closed. (We are here.)
  • Re-create the article in mainspace in the future: Would be more acceptable provided there are sources, but would still be subject to WP:AfD if somebody found it wasn't notable.

  I would honestly recommend just waiting for the eventual investigations to be released, at which point there may be enough for a standalone article. Presently, the consensus has already formed and most of us have already moved on. 11WB (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Tell me why the sources I provided don't count — explain it properly, not just "not enough for SIGCOV" — and I'll withdraw this review myself. Shiningr3ds (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  You answered your own question. But to go into greater detail, if we take this source. It is a few short paragraphs about a tribute that has no relevance to the crash at all. The sources you provided are extremely weak and are not something an article can be based on. 11WB (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  The source you're attacking is about the tribute — not the sources I listed for the crash itself (El Tiempo, Infobae, Blu Radio). Why are you ignoring those? Shiningr3ds (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  That is one of the sources you provided. The metaphorical horse is deceased, it is time to stop attempting to resuscitate it. I can say with almost 100% certainty that this discussion is going to be closed very soon. The article is not going to be recreated, and this is certainly not a good way to attempt it. 11WB (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Also, I don't think using the word "attacking" is very fair. You asked for an explanation as to why it "doesn't count". I provided that explanation. 11WB (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  You're conflating two completely different things. That source was about the tribute — it was never meant to establish notability, only to show lasting effects. The sources I'm actually using to prove notability are El Tiempo, Infobae, and Blu Radio — all of which analyze the crash itself. You've ignored every single one of them. If you want to argue against the keep, engage with those. Otherwise, you're just dodging. Shiningr3ds (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  The sources are irrelevant. A consensus already formed against having an article. Of the three you provided above, only the El Tiempo one is what I would consider to be actual significant coverage. The others are too short. Why would I argue against the merge, when I supported it? This discussion is going around in circles. If you are serious about continuing to contest the merge close, you are welcome to copy and paste this thread to the correct venue, that being WP:AN. This talk page, per the guidelines, is not the correct place to review a merge close. 11WB (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  You just admitted El Tiempo counts. That's one source already. The others may be shorter, but they're still reliable and independent. "Too short" isn't a policy-based reason to dismiss them — WP:SIGCOV doesn't require a minimum word count. As for venue — fine, I'll take it to AN if needed. The rest is just "we outvoted you" — which isn't how consensus works. Shiningr3ds (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  This discussion can be closed by yourself. Just paste your opening statement at WP:AN and we can start over there. 11WB (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  I really wouldn't recommend doing so however. This is best left as is. 11WB (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Honestly, I don't really care where this discussion happens. If an admin wants to move it to WP:AN, fine — I'll continue there. Shiningr3ds (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  An admin isn't going to do that. They will just close this and that'll be it. If you are absolutely certain you want to review the merge, you will need to start a thread at AN yourself. 11WB (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Done. I've posted the request at WP:AN. Shiningr3ds (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• I've posted the request at WP:AN. Shiningr3ds (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.