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 merge to 1st_Cavalry_Division_(United_States)#Vietnam_.281st_Air_Cav.29.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1965 Fort Benning Mid-Air Helicopter Collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH for Military accidents. Nobody notable on board. Crash was tragic but should be on list of military accidents only. ...William 13:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -...William 13:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This would have been part of the 1st Cavalry Division's testing and training process before the unit deployed to Vietnam, possibly during an exercise (explaining the high losses...both Hueys would have been loaded). Not saying that should automatically make it notable, but just putting out some context for the crash. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In my opinion (and no, I don't have to back it up by quoting anything, since AfDs are about opinions, so please don't witter on about me having to), 18 deaths is significant enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep- Would have have been the deadliest army/benning/military accident for some period on either side{cn}, no others on page compare; nothing in these to pass SOLDIER, but include two burials at Arlington: 1LT Donald E Spencer, (CWO) Dewey C Little, (WO) James L Mersman, (PFC) Jose H Garcia, (PFC) Daniel Odell Hilton, (SGT) Charles Edward Lewis, (SGT) Constancio Nacua. Dru of Id (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Fort Benning#History. Can I say WP:NOTNEWS about something that's almost 50 years old? --BDD (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You could also merge to First Cavalry Division, since it's clearly related to their activation as an airmobile division. If the airmobile or Howze Board articles ever get up to scratch those might be viable options, too. It's more related to unit or concept history than it is Benning, IMO. Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Tragic but sadly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, even with 18 dead, accident. In military training, unfortunatly, these things happen; the burials at Arlington are an interesting fact, but the fact some of the dead were buried there does not confer notability. Nothing about this article suggests that there is anything unique or encyclopedic about this accident; does not meet WP:AIRCRASH, no Wikinotable, either through WP:SOLDIER or generic WP:N people involved. No need to merge/redirect as there is nothing on this page referenced to reliable sources; can be found in RSes and added independently to the appropriate articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd disagree about notability in terms of the context of the times, but agree that this shouldn't stand on its own. Better to fold it into a division history article or something dealing with early airmobility. Sadly, most of the Wiki articles for this period aren't up to snuff. And there are RSs out there for this (Stanton's history of the 1st Cav mentions it, for one). Support Delete provided the information isn't lost. Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete military aircraft accidents are just not notable and nothing in this article raises the barrier for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? So, if a plane was to go down and kill a hundred soldiers, it wouldn't be notable, even if all those men and women were returning from an overseas deployment? By that logic, smaller accidents that we have here are somehow notable because they are civilians? That argument makes no sense, whatsoever. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it killed a hundred, it would very likely pass WP:GNG. This does not. And it does make sense for the simple fact that military planes crash more often. Two choppers collided...WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Airliner crashes...not so much. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Compared to the notability guidelines for aviation incidents, this far exceeds the minimum needed for basic notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way? No Wikinotable people killed, no WP:PERSISTENCE, no changes in procedures = fails. Hard. Even leaving WP:AIRCRASH OMG it's only an essay!! aside, this utterly fails the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - had this been a well-formed article I may have !voted differently. There is almost no useful info in the article, bar the fact the mid-air occurred and there were eighteen deaths. Such info can be adequately covered elsewhere as mentioned above. Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to 1st Cavalry Division (United States)#Vietnam (1st Air Cav) assuming Intothatdarkness is correct. Otherwise merge to Fort Benning#History. It may not meet the requirements for a standalone article, but it certainly meets the requirement for a mention. If more sources can be found and the article could be built up, I would support later recreating it over the redirect. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In the absence of a Merge or redirect I support inclusion of this article over deleting it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Even though it utterly fails both the relevant essay (WP:AIRCRASH) and guideline (WP:GNG)? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That is only an essay. GNG is an issue, which is why I support merging the article to some relevant topic. If faced with complete deletion with no coverage and retaining the article as is, I find deleting this with no coverage to hurt the encyclopedia and retaining the article as is being neutral in its effect on the encyclopedia. That being said, there are many events that do not appear to meet WP:GNG because they occurred prior to widespread usage of the internet. I am sure there would be coverage if this occurred in 2012. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOHARM (of course, WP:ATA is only an essay...). As for "If this occured in 2012", there would be coverage that fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, my opinion on this matter is based on what is better for the encyclopedia. Your WP:NOHARM link isn't related to what I stated. I am saying it would harm the encyclopedia for this information not to be presented. I don't really care wear it is presented or how it is presented, so long as it is presented. If a merge outcome is ruled out, then it should be presented here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My link to WP:NOHARM was in relation to your statement retaining the article as is being neutral in its effect on the encyclopedia - i.e. 'retaining it does no harm'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Was one of a series of training crashes in the 1964-65 period, although the most costly. Had it happened the year before, it would have been very significant. Unfortunately, does not meet WP:PLANECRASH. Should not be merged with the 1st Cavalry Division, if only because the unit involved was the 11th Air Assault Division (Test), and not the 1st Cavalry Division! Could be moved to there though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps someone should create an article on the training accidents during that period. The relevant accidents could all redirect to that page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about a merge/redirect to Bell UH-1 Iroquois#U.S. Army? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to either the regimental article or 1st Air Cavalry Division. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2012 (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.