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 articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Armavia Flight 967 is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
I concur as well, it is worthy of an article. Can someone please verify the times? The way it reads right now it was a 15 minute flight. Is that true? Davidpdx18:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was true that it took off at 1:45 local and was to land at 2:00 local. However, even though it was going north, Russia and Armenia are in different time zones. I'll fix the article. --Golbez18:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(this article) was created because people might want to get extra information about it than the small amounts of information provided by brief news stories Jam00:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...the third highest death toll of any accident involving an Airbus A320 after Gulf Air Flight 072 and TAM Airlines Flight 3054" - that's wrong, because TAM 3054 had crashed in 2007 a yeaer after the Armavia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.119.201 (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed one revision from this page's history because it (and its edit summary) contained personally idenfitiable information of a person. - Mark02:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated "The Plane" section of the article to reflect that the aircraft was not actually owned by Armavia as previously suggested but was in fact on a 3yr operating lease.--Pianoman140710:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was it really appropriate to put this article under protection after one vandalism? Quite often we go through 5 or 6 vandalisms before we do that. As the situation continues, I think anyone should be able to edit it. Please let me know if I missed something. Clarkefreak∞03:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there were several others that contained personal information about a Wikipedia member, so they were removed from the article's history. In light of that, semiprot is indeed reasonable. --Golbez03:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! There doesn't seem any need to have protected this article in the first place. Blocking the user concerned would have sufficed. In any case, this article is linked from the main page, and per WP:PROTECT"articles linked from the main page should NOT be protected (full or semi) except to clean up vandalism. Protection should be kept to 10-15 minutes in these cases.". I have, accordingly, unprotected the page. The vandalism levels on this article can easily be contained. └ UkPaolo/talk┐21:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that someone contacted the photographer of this photo directly as many photographers on airliners.net have gotten very upset by the unauthorized usage of their images-Reid A.03:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Airliners.net terms require written permission of the photographer before photos can be republished. [1] I have tagged the image disputed fair use. -- Hawaiian71720:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I do believe it qualifies for being used as fair use for the same reason as the image at J. K. Rowling's biography. I mean the picture of the plane is really important for the article; however I could accept if it was deleted, but I do believe it adds significantly to the article! -- Snailwalker |talk21:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the image from the article until we have found a solution for this dispute. The article is linked from the main page, and we shouldn't display copyright-disputes, as it could pose a legal problem for us. Snailwalker |talk16:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I just posted on the image's talk page, I found a photo of this aircraft on Wikimedia Commons and added it to this article. -- Hawaiian71704:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the final accident report has been published for this crash (Final Accident Report), this entire article needs to be re-written with reference only to the facts contained in the report.
I have just modified one external link on Armavia Flight 967. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.