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. While there were a couple users who argued for merging, it seems consensus pointed to deleting instead. This debate was an interesting read, and both sides brought up decent points, but I felt overall that the deletion advocates' arguments were more grounded in policy. So, in summary, deleting per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NEWSEVENT. I have no problem with the article being recreated after more details emerge, iff those details make this crash special or significant. As always, bring any disputes concerning this closure to User talk:The Earwig. — The Earwig @ 02:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Bladon aeroplane crash[edit]

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

I normally wouldn't nominate an article so soon after the event, but this just is not a notable accident. Sadly, it is quite a common situation. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The investigation has not been conducted and notable aircraft defects or problems could be found and the article could be a useful reference. Considering the number of media reports and the rarity of air crashes in Oxfordshire I would leave this anyway. Macintosher (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per WP:NEWSEVENT. Ipoellet (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki: Would it be appropriate to transfer this to Wikinews? (I'm not very familiar with Wikinews, so am unsure of its criteria for inclusion.) --Deskford (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Over at WN we don't write in an encyclopedic style, so it would need rewritten from scratch anyway, plus the licenses aren't suitable - it would be a copyvio. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Then I would have to say delete; this doesn't seem to be an event notable enough for coverage in WP. --Deskford (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Yet another NN aviation incident, involving a light aircraft. Why does every aircrash get an article and virtually never a road crash? WP:NOTNEWS. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fatal light aircraft crashes are an unfortunately frequent occurrence. When the investigation is concluded, at that point we might be able to conclude that this particular crash is notable but not until then. Adambro (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AIRCRASH, mostly speculation, and of that which is cited almost all is general news reporting with bits of more specialist fire service reporting mixed in. Based on the information available at the moment, the absolute most coverage this event deserves on Wikipedia is a statement on the Oxford airport article that it happened (and even that might be pushing it). Thryduulf (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -sorry. At it stands it’s a good article which might sit well on a news or special interest site, but doesn’t look at home on Wikipedia. Firstly, in my view it is rather soon after the incident, and may inadvertently distress the people involved. Secondly, there is not enough concrete data to work with, and we cannot yet know that the incident is notable. Perhaps it could stay as a draft on a user page. SkyeWaye (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the Merge idea seems a good one, as this incident is notable for Bladon, and looks in keeping within that article. A draft user page would keep the item in readiness should it prove notable, after the AAIB investigation. It’s usually up to the AAIB to establish the facts, at least to the level which is useful on Wikipedia: and this will take a while.SkyeWaye (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, Macintosher, but I'm going to go with the majority here and say that it lacks enough notability for a stand-alone article, although the mention at London Oxford Airport should definitely remain; most airport articles have an "accidents and incidents" section for something like this. C628 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bladon - as that community is not likely to have had many crashes, so it might be locally notable. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bladon - Agreed that it should stay as a draft and possibly be transferred to the Bladon article where there's already a link. Oxford Airport isn't proven to be of any special interest, but it did occur in Bladon. Macintosher (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is an aircraft crash that claimed victimes lives! It's got enough news reports, it's likely to be dicussed for a while on the news and has plent of resources. Zaps93 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think there is enough notability in this article. It was not that a big crash. 2 lives is almost nothing. So I say delete.--Heymid (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is disrespectful, your practically saying their lives ment nothing. Zaps93 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of this article, however, we must consider that sadly many crashes do happen and information should be placed strategically in other, more notable articles. I personally would like it to stay on WP in its own right, but I am not an administrator. I shall make sure that a draft or part of article is kept up to date. I think this is respectful. Macintosher (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on your talk, I'll make sure you get a copy if this is deleted. Some more support has come in, see below - I copied it from this page's talk. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say do not delete as this is an uncommon incident in UK air safety history:

There are very few light aircraft crashes in the uk (contrary to other comment).
This was in rare and extreme weather conditions for UK
There 'may' be water-in-fuel (engines reported as 'stopped' whilst in service) or other mechanical reasons for accident that will only be shown by Farnborough team investigation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.228.146 (talk • contribs)

I would refer to the above unsigned user to what we have said above, and I hope this positive contribution will assist when it's decided what information to preserve and whereabouts on WP. The information should be available in one form or another based on what Blood Red Sandman has said above. Macintosher (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Bladon article, where this event can be adequately covered. Per WP:AIRCRASH, there is currently nothing to indicate that this artilce is worthy of a stand-alone article. No prejudice to re-creation if it subsequently emerges that WP:AIRCRASH criteria can be met. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Zaps93: I am very sorry. I really have to be careful for what I am writing to the public. I promise to be more careful next time. What I ment was the same as one of the previous writers, that all plane crashes don't need an article, whether it is notable or not.--Heymid (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be, I over reacted, I now see what you meant. My appologies aswell. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable light-aircraft accident which are not that rare despite the comments, probably not that notable to Bladon either as the field is close to the airport not the village. MilborneOne (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a mention could be made in the London Oxford Airport article then. Macintosher (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an aircraft crash is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you consider this crash to be notable. Adambro (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This happened less than 15 miles from me, very sad and the cause is a mystery at the moment. The AAIB report will take about four months to release, article could be resurrected if some new and unusual form of crashing is discovered. Did not affect the residents of Bladon (not he first aircraft out of Kidlington to crash into a field shortly after take-off) and should not be recorded under the Oxford airport article either. Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piper PA-31 incidents are rare so in any case it seems a WP mention should be kept. Anyway, I find it unusual for you not to take a more careful approach to preserving your local history! I suppose that's up to you, but should this happen near me I would make sure some data was kept on WP. Your decision as to your duty, I suppose. Macintosher (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen fatal PA-31 accidents in the last four years just in the United States doesnt sound that rare an occurance. MilborneOne (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two are listed other than this on the PA-31 WP page and there is no link as of yet, so this could be a unique incident in terms of the WP record. Plus, considering the fact that 2044 PA-31s were built that's very few crashes per year - just over 3 a year on average. By contrast, the Boeing 747 (not a plane in the same class, but a useful widespread indicator, has 3 crashes a year on average, and I think they would be rare enough incidents for Wikipedia articles. Many of these did not incur fatalities, so if that many 747 incidents could be covered, why not an unexplained PA-31 incident? Macintosher (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2010 (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.