Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Peru plane crash

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 delete. As a bit of a side note, though, there's nothing wrong with Necrothesp's argument – the consensus is just against him in this case – and there's really no need to beat him over the head with bluelinks. Jenks24 (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Peru plane crash

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Small private plane crash with nobody notable on board. WP:NOTNEWS also applies.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC) ...William 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable crash, no notable passengers, non-notable flight conditions. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Number of fatalities (9) is larger than in the recent 2013 Compagnie Africaine d'Aviation crash (6). NickSt (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Number of fatalities doesn't make a crash notable. Take for instance this[1] where 14 died. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument....William 13:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notable conditions: Plane became ensnared in power lines. NickSt (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to the statement above, I do believe that the number of fatalities makes a crash significant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think WP:ASSERTN is the WP:ATA that applies here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I'm tired of pointing out, opinion is valid in AfD discussions. If they were based merely on a rigid set of rules we wouldn't bother having discussions! We'd just authorise admins to go round deleting any article which didn't meet the rigid criteria we'd laid down. Since this is clearly not the case, I'm at a loss to understand why some editors insist on claiming that others' opinions are not relevant to discussions because they don't conform to some set of "rules" (which aren't, of course, actually rules, but also opinions) which we don't all agree with. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have finally found a PDF press release from the mining company that owned the plane that states it was a "Beechcraft 200". WP:AIRCRASH ~~sets~~ suggests a standard for notability based upon the aircraft size. Aircraft with a "maximum gross weight under 12,500 lb (5,670 kg)" must meet higher standards of notability. Of course, the aircraft in this instance has a maximum gross weight of exactly 12,500 lb (5,670 kg), so I guess a coin flip may be in order. Neither number of souls or number of casualties should matter for the notability standards, in my opinion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since notability is subjective and has not yet, thankfully, been subjected to rigid rules, although some would clearly like it to be, and since WP:AIRCRASH is simply an essay that many of us disagree with, it matters if editors think it matters. I'm puzzled as to why people think we have these AfD discussions if opinion is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies. I skipped past the 'essay' template on that page when looking for guidelines. I never meant to imply that opinions were irrelevant here. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ONLYESSAY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable event. This accident fails the WP:EVENT guideline for the following reasons:

The crash is of zero significance for the society or aviation industry.
There has not been any continous coverage. It was just a news spike, which is not acceptable per WP:NOTNEWS.
There has not been any in-depth coverage. It's all just a rephrasing of news bulletins.

--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FoxyOrange; if news agencies don't even report the type of aircraft, where is the significance? Hitting power lines is actually one of the more common causes of light aircraft crashes - a light aircraft being one with a maximum takeoff weight of 12,500lbs/5,700kg or less, so the King Air 200 is firmly in the 'must meet higher standards of notability' suggested by WP:AIRCRASH (12,500lbs/5,700kg is not an arbitrary weight, it is a cut-off point in aviation regulations worldwide and aircraft with a MTOW more than this must comply with more onerous regulations). The number of deaths does not confer notability, this argument keeps cropping up in air crash AfDs but there is no 'magic number' as to number of deaths. YSSYguy (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crashes happen. Sometimes they're notble; others, not. FoxyOrange and YSSYguy spell out clearly why this one is not; there is a news spike, and nothing more. WP:PERSISTENCE requires, well, persistence; widespread but brief geographic coverage is to be expected in this day and age of instant communications. A tragic accident, but does not clear the bar; if, in the future, something changes to establish notability, deletion is not forever. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with The Bushranger and most of you here. This crash fails WP:AIRCRASH, it's not notable, I mean general aviation crashes happen all the time, there's not too much to worry about them and keep making articles. Only stick to commercial air crashes and not unnotable general aviation ones. Springyboy (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd support keeping if the article was expanded.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article isn't a good candidate for future expansion. Right now its a prime example of WP:BOMBARDMENT or namely 6 citations for a text section that is 55 words in all. That's one citation for every nine words. It's a file and forget tragedy that is because it disappears from the news very quickly. This tragedy doesn't have the huge initial barrage of news reports this one had that also ended in AFD[2]. People thought that was notable in the last five weeks there's been exactly one[3] original news article concerning the tragedy....William 13:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete. I see no intentions from the creator to elaborate on the article further during this week, so I support deletion.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Foxy Orange, just not notable. The it's only an Essay brigade would do well to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#That's only a guideline or essay--Petebutt (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2013 (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.