Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Rockwell 690B 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rockwell 690B crash

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

Challenged PROD. This is a tragic, but ultimately non-notable general aviation accident. The general expression of consensus on this sort of incident, WP:AIRCRASH, is not met, and it fails the WP:GNG as well. This accident is already covered, appropriately, at Tweed New Haven Regional Airport#Incidents; a merge/redirect may be a possible alternative. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete as failing WP:NOTNEWS policy as lacking any form of enduring significance, it was in the news because it was a news story. Not sold on the idea of a redirect as "2013 Rockwell 690B crash" is not a helpful search term. LGA _talk^edits 02:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because WP:EVENT is ot met: The crash has not been th subject of any media coverage other than initial news bulletins.--FoxyOrange (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet the consensus standard WP:AIRCRASH and especially the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This sort of accident is tragic, but a daily common occurrence in aviation worldwide. The accident has not resulted in any lasting effects, such as airworthiness directives service bulletins, changes in ATC or pilot operational or training procedures. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with default redirect) per nom. Not notable, but worth a mention. Ansh6 6 6 19:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 children dead on the ground, plane destroys two houses in a city -- this is not just an air crash of a small plane with people aboard getting dead. Notability requirements are not just those pertaining to air crashes, but to community involved as well, and it obviously transcends the destination airport's. --Mareklug ^talk 06:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually it is. The aircraft just happened to hit the houses, it was not a deliberate act! This accident does not rate a stand-alone page, but there is no reason why you can't add a paragraph into the East Haven, Connecticut article.--Petebutt (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- How? Where is the WP:PERSISTENCE? Where is the case for notability beyond WP:ITSNOTABLE? Wikipedia is not a memorial. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Already amply covered at East Haven, Connecticut--Petebutt (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sad but not notable enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is a good place to note crashes with extensive media coverage. This appears to be part of a coordinated campaign on the part of few editors to purge all incidents with even the hint of a connection to terrorism, or accidents with heavy media coverage. The nominator appears to be just interested in aviation, but if you look at editing history of some others advocating deletion, you will find a number of articles on terrorist-style mass shootings being deleted without much notice, and one has to wonder why so many of these articles are being targeted and for what purpose. Redhanker (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, what? What, exactly, does this article have to do with terrorism at all? Also, one of the reasons this was nominated for deletion is because there is no heavy media coverage. And please remember to assume good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This aircraft accident is connected to terrorism? What a bizarre claim! Where does any reliable source indicate that? - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Transcendence (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - none of the four people killed are notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia, therefore this accident is not notable enough to sustain an article either. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, notability isn't inherited... Ansh6 6 6 09:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but it's been accepted as general consensus that a Wikinotable person being killed in an aircraft accident raises its notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but there are plenty of airplane crash articles where no notable people were involved, although I must admit very few of those are light aircraft. Ansh6 6 6 18:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah - it's just one of the markers, and it's more heavily weighted for light aircraft (like, say, Payne Stewart's crash) than it is for scheduled airliners - any fatalities in a scheduled airline accident generally trip the "article" switch. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:31, 24 August 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.