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. The Delete votes were stronger, supported by policy compared to the keep votes. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point AV-8B crash[edit]

2008 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point AV-8B crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

non notable military accident no civilian casualties, contested prod MilborneOne (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Evidently notable. Nominators lack of interest in military casualties is not relevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not a lack of interest just a lack of notability - military jets crash all the time mostly like this on non notable training flights, wikipedia is not a memorial for lost military pilots. Google links just provide evidence that the accident was in the news not that it is notable not any long term notability. MilborneOne (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability does not expire. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —BusterD (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. Buckshot06(prof) 12:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep can't think of any reason that a military air crash would be less notable than a civillian one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Semper fi. 173.100.3.240 (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Why is this particular crash notable? Military crashes aren't fortunately commonplace, but there are enough of them that merely being a crash isn't enough to be notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Crash is notable as there is not a known source for a problem. The investigation is not yet complete; once it is, I think it can be ruled whether it is notable or not. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep It is a small enough crash that there might be some sort of NOTNEWS argument but I'm not seeing that. Investigation is continuing and there will undoubtedly be further sources produced making any NOTNEWS argument pretty weak. Seems to meet WP:N. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Most military single-plane fatal accidents which don't cause any significant collateral damage don't get their own articles. This unusual crash's article was named after the pilot. I started this article because more details were available in the press than is usual for crashes of this type. The investigation has not been released yet, so we don't know if the cause of this crash will be significant or not. In short, I believe there are valid arguments for keeping it and for deleting it at this time. If consensus is to delete it, it needs to be mentioned in the Cherry Point article at least. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This ends up being a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete basically we need a criterion, and it seems reasonable that for a general aviation or military crash that if there is only one death and no special features we should not keep the article.~ Given the conflict between the GNG and NOT NEWWS, we seem to be using two different principles at the same time: if it is in the news it's notable; if it's only in the news it isn't. This may be the intent but we should try to get things harmonized--do we intend to discard all articles for which there are only newspaper references? DGG (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC) .[reply]

• WP:NOTNEWS is a dead letter. See the main page which currently reports:

• Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Turkey sign an intergovernmental agreement...
• Javier Velásquez becomes Prime Minister of Peru...
• At least 43 people are killed in clashes near the Somali presidential palace...
• At least 23 police officers are killed in an ambush attack by Maoist rebels...
• The launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour, carrying astronauts on the STS-127 mission, is delayed after its launch pad area was struck by lightning ...
• A series of organized cyber attacks strikes major public and private sector websites...

The Space Shuttle story seems like the archetypal small earthquake in Peru - nobody killed kinda story and I reckon our Harrier crash article is as good. Picking and choosing articles on this basis seems to be pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT which really isn't good enough. The test of notability is has it been noticed? and we should avoid imposing our own opinions on top of this. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there ever an AfD discussion you don't accuse those who oppose your view as ((WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]? You think every article that isn't a blantant hoax should be included. I get it already. But why do you keep assuming bad faith and discounting the views of everyone who doesn't agree with you as just being a matter of "I don't like it"? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also, why would only one death be not notable? How many people have to die for it to be a notable crash? WP:NOTBIGENOUGH addresses this as an arbitrary number.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly WP:NOTNEWS. Alternatively, include as an item in an article that summarizes similar accidents. ThreeE (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:N: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability". Was there any coverage beyond the initial short burst? It seems not. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It depends on what happens when the accident investigation report is released. If the media make a big to-do about what caused the accident, then it will add to its notability. If not, then it diminishes it. The story isn't over yet. Cla68 (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would personally be perfectly willing to eliminate NOT NEWS, and incorporate such material into Wikipedia. But we have the structure we have, and the acceptance of NOT NEWS is basic enough that I am not about to challenge it. DGG (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My point is that NOT NEWS is not accepted. WikiNews has failed whle breaking news is routinely reported here in Wikipedia in real time. We have lots of article upon air crashes - see category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2008. And we have have a list for smaller cases which don't have their own article: List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). There is clearly no bar to inclusion of this material and so it would be absurdly arbitrary to exclude this notable incident which is well-sourced and written. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Good idea as this is one of thousands of non-notable fatal military accidents and as you suggest probably needs no more than a mention at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) and not a stand alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're withdrawing the deletion request and will start a merge discussion instead? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think you need a merge discussion to add a summary of this accident at that list article. The section on the pilot is not really needed as it is not relevant to the accident and is a bit WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Can the conclusion of this discussion be to delete and create a redirect to the list article? MilborneOne (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH or WP:N Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:AIRCRASH states, "Accidents or incidents to military aircraft...are not in the purview of this discussion," so bad example. The rest of the criteria are still pending, so I think we should leave them until such a time as the conclusion to the mishap is written. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:AIRCRASH has just been amended to remove that distinction Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:AIRCRASH is evidently not a stable guideline. Per WP:NOTLAW, it should reflect outcomes such as this discussion rather than being prescriptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if we started taking much notice of WP:NOTNEWS we could go on a most fearsome rampage, call it a noble crusade, and wipe out reams of content in many of WP's best articles. On the other hand, we could be sensible people who have heard of WP:IAR and see that this article is encylopedic and beneficial to WP. - 91.187.64.57 (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2009 (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.