The crash article seems short enough to fit into another article. Shall we merge the private airplane crash incident into the biography of the Canadian politician? George Ho (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree - I think the crash article should be merged into the biography of Jean. It seems more fitting than to have a small and tiny article on an incident that primarily affected his life only. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's a little harsh to the pilots and family. Looks like they died too. So maybe Jean was the only famous person killed, but not the only. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree AHeneen (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a merge of 2016 Magdalen Islands Mitsubishi MU-2 crash into this article. Note previous discussion here. —  AjaxSmack  03:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but please make sure all the proper redirects are made, e.g. at least all those at the talk page linked by AjaxSmack above. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, in the sense that a separate article about the crash is unwarranted. IMO all that is needed is a redirect. The salient points of the Magdalen Islands MU-2 crash article are a couple of sentences, the rest is padding that really does not aid understanding of the subject - which is the death of Jean Lapierre. That couple of sentences is already essentially duplicated here, just need to say that it was a Mitsubishi MU-2 so that the redirects (there are quite a few) have some connection with this article. YSSYguy (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The two subjects are not the same. They do not belong together in content or logical structure. Just the fact that the crash article is small does not disqualify it from being an article. It is not valid to merge articles with only marginal mutual relevance just because one is smaller than the other. The very idea that Jean Lapierre's death is the only point of interest to the crash would have been obscene anyway, even if he were the only celebrity on board. As SemanticMantis pointed out, he was not the only one to die. When YSSYguy says that the subject "is the death of Jean Lapierre", he is only correct in reference to this article. We cannot argue that other articles should be abridged or merged simply because of what they mean or fail to mean in connection to Jean Lapierre. The crash is a separate subject, only relevant to his life in one respect, whereas there is potentially a basis for far more information about the crash to emerge; we do not know yet whether anyone will bring more to light, about the model of aircraft, its strengths and weaknesses, the conditions and the relevance of that airfield and its conditions, what was found in the black boxes, or for that matter, who else died or how etc etc. Such items, like the rest of the details about the crash, would definitely be at most marginally relevant to this article, and therefore would complicate updating it, whereas obtaining details of it if any reader of the Jean Lapierre article should want it, requires no more than a link. OTOH, they could prove of interest to other people who never had heard of Jean Lapierre, if that were imaginable.
  Again, if it were decided that there should be an article on crashes involving Magdalen Islands or models of the Mitsubishi MU-2, one could argue for merging it into something like that. Or it might fit well into say, Mitsubishi_MU-2#Incidents_and_accidents. But not here. JonRichfield (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't arguing about whether any other articles should be abridged or merged, we are discussing one particular article. If Jean Lapierre (or any other notable person) had not been on board, we would not be discussing this at all; the article about the crash of a light aircraft (which is literally an everyday occurrence) would never have survived a deletion discussion without this - for want of a better expression - "reflected" notability. The only notability regarding this crash is that he was killed because of it, so it is logical to mention it here. It is also logical to mention it in the airport article and in the MU-2 article. Not knowing what will come to light with regard to a cause (and MU-2s do not have any "black boxes" to extract data from - they are below the size threshold to require fitment of them and nobody spends that sort of money in aviation unless they have to) shows that the article was created prematurely in that context; again, the only valid reason for its existence was that Lapierre was involved. Should it come to light that the crash is notable for some other reason, then by all means undo the redirect and expand the article. YSSYguy (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per wp:UNDUE and wp:NPOV. Combining a multi-death plane crash into one person's article risks too much wp:UNDUE detailed text within a person's bio-page. Instead, keep the 2 articles separate. In general, I favor keeping event-pages and bio-pages separate as easier to avoid wp:UNDUE text and also provide wp:NPOV coverage, as otherwise, in this case the deaths of all onboard should be treated equally, rather than downplay the deaths of the pilots or other people simply to avoid wp:UNDUE text about them in another person's bio-page. Hence, the conclusion is obvious: oppose merge to avoid wp:UNDUE text but allow wp:NPOV coverage of all onboard. The general notability comes with mention in numerous sources, but the event-level notability is established when multiple sources discuss the overall plane-crash event with more detail than one person's role in the crash, and then the event is separately notable. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above (undue). 95.135.111.186 (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (Summoned by bot).Oppose merge to Jean Lapierre, but support merge to Mitsubishi_MU-2#Incidents_and_accidents, with a mention from Lapierre's page to there. Note also that the essay WP:AIRCRASH agrees (though I am not sure it reflects significant consensus from the community, or even from the Wikiproject Aviation).

I think we all agree that the sources warrant a mention of the incident somewhere. The question is whether to have a standalone article or to merge somewhere. I would argue that it depends of the relevance of the merge target candidates: if no good merge can be done, then keep a standalone article. Jean Lapierre is a poor target, as noted above, since there are multiple casualties (note also that according to ref #1 the pilot had some weak notability as well). However Mitsubishi_MU-2#Incidents_and_accidents is fine, as long as there are redirects and stuff everywhere it is needed.

For the record, I disagree with the argument that merging to Jean Lapierre would make the article too lengthy - the length is OK right now; moreover, I see slim chances that the article will ever get hugely expanded to the point that a split is needed, now that the person is dead, and even if it happens it will be time to split later on. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per Tigraan Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Rather than merging the crash article with Jean Lapierre, it should be merged with Mitsubishi_MU-2#Incidents_and_accidents. There are numerous other crashes and fatalities noted in this article on the aircraft. Agree that, as sad as the Lapierre and other fatalities are, the crash would likely not merit a separate article if one of the passengers were not independently notable. I've added material on the people (names of all who died) in the articles on Jean Lapierre and the Magdalen Islands, as there were so many fatalities from his family.Parkwells (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as recommended above by Parkwells. The crash does not warrant its own article, but the best place to merge it is Mitsubishi_MU-2#Incidents_and_accidents. Maproom (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Parkwells and Tigraan. The best place to merge it is Mitsubishi_MU-2#Incidents_and_accidents, though I don't think merging it here would violate WP:UNDUE or make the article too lengthy. I simply think there are better places to merge that might make more encyclopedic sense. Lizzius (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Parkwells and Tigraan - Better off merged at the Mitsubishi article. –Davey2010^Talk 13:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merged content. Discussion still continues until closure. George Ho (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I am of the opinion that a separate article is unwarranted, I was not wedded to the idea of the crash article being merged here; I have no problem with the merge to the MU-2 article. YSSYguy (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]