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. not necessary to merge and no required for attribution and covered where visitors might reasonably expect to find it and nbot a useful search term for a redirect. So the only question is does the article meet inclusion criteria for standalone notability. the consensus is that it doesnt Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Ohio Mitsubishi MU-2 crash[edit]

2010 Ohio Mitsubishi MU-2 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This article does not meet the notability standards for aviation accidents set out at WP:AIRCRASH. It might merit a sentence at the article about the airport, but nothing more than that. The article about the make of plane suggests that this event was not a significant accident for the type. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge into Lorain County Regional Airport. Clearly fails WP:AIRCRASH, but I feel that it should be included in the airport's page per WP:AIRCRASH. mynameinc (t|c) 16:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC) mynameinc (t|c) 21:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Mitsubishi MU-2, and NOT the airport article - the article of the plane has a section specifically addressing its safety concerns, so it would probably be better to merge it into the article of the plane rather than the airport. Blodance the Seeker 17:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. What about merging it into both? Apparently, this is Lorain County Reigonal Airport's most significant crash. mynameinc (t|c) 18:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe one or two sentences in the airport article, and links to the plane article? Blodance the Seeker 01:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that content has been merged, vote changed to delete. mynameinc (t|c) 21:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment both the airport and the plane now have the standard accidents and incidents sections that airport and plane articles have, with the typical one-line to one-paragraph accident/incident overviews. As I did not use the article for a source of work (only the references to the article) there is no merge, no attribution history to be checked against and this article can be deleted. 76.66.195.93 (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: adequately covered under the airport article. Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not-notable, not really notable for the aircraft article either. MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Lorain Airport and Mitsubishi MU-2 articles, it's a plane crash so even though it's not notable it deserves some reports and it is apparently the worst ever crash of a Mitsubishi MU-2 or in Lorain. Ggoere (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the information that could be merged is already on those pages, and as explained up thread there is no need to keep this around for attribution purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge add to the Mitsubishi MU-2#Safety_Concerns but that portion of the article really needs some attention andyzweb (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That section is about a specific series of incidents, and this incident is covered in the immediately following section of the article. There is nothing encyclopaedic to merge that is not already in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I strongly disagree with the above opinions, this is a plane accident that killed multiple people and is still relatively recent, meaning future discoveries on the plane crash might still come to light. I tend to be opposed to many of the criterion in WP:AIRCRASH which by the way is an essay, not Wikipedia guidelines or policy. Notability can be established using many of the hundreds of articles there are on this topic thus satisfying WP:RS. Here is just a taste of the many third party sources available; [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. What makes this less notable then other accidents where less people died? (And please don't go citing otherstuffexists on me) The fact remains that people lost there lives, in a place crash with unknown circumstances and we have references to expand and maintain this article. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. If you realize that others may cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on you, I thought you should provide an explaination with regards to why it does not apply, rather than saying "PLZ DUNT DO DAT, SRSLY". Anyway, the actual issue is irrelevant - general aviation incidents are different from scheduled commercial flights. Notability does not depend on number of fatalities. Are airliner incidents entirely lacking fatalities or with only a single fatality any less notable than a random Cessna plane crash where possibly 3 or 4 people perished? Probably not. This incident fails WP:NOTNEWS. Blodance the Seeker 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well in regards to otherstuffexists, I was almost 100% sure someone would cite it on me but I think my point about aviation fatalities is still valid. But thats starting to fork off into another discussion. The real issue is that we don't have any true aviation guidelines on Wikipedia, sure yes as it has already been noted WP:AIRCRASH is a project guidline that many have come to follow, but is not an official notability guideline. I don't like following essays when we have a general notability guideline. Plus there are plenty of sources and while one might say is just WP:NOTNEWS it actually can help to grow this article while we wait for the NTSB report. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you noted the previous AfDs about aviation incidents, you might have noted that people generally agree with this version of WP:AIRCRASH so far. i.e. As far as I can see, the community consensus is with it. This incident as of now does not appear to be notable, and we are not supposed to "wait till it (perhaps) becomes notable", as there are no strong/convincing evidence that the incident is notable. If it really turned out to be notable later, we can always undelete this one. Blodance the Seeker 17:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented in many air crash related afds before and never seen this consensus you are talking about, but perhaps times are changing. And im not saying to wait until this becomes more notable, but rather making a remark that it may become even more notable. The fact of the matter is that WP:AIRCRASH is still not an adopted guideline as distinguished by community consensus, until that time comes it is no more then an essay even if it does have support from people who take place in these afds. There are many reliable sources which satisfy WP:N and WP:RS, but they have been overlooked. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the sources - they discuss the deceased people(especially Donald Brown) extensively, but when it comes to the plane crash itself... sorry, I really won't call that "significant coverage". Also, there is a reason why WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays on notability. Blodance the Seeker 02:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having reliable sources does not make something notable. I could find hundreds of reliable sources on each day's stock market movement, but we don't have an article over those, and (probably) never will. It's significant coverage within those reliable sources, which this topic fails to have. mynameinc (t|c) 03:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course they should write essays as "guidance", rather then guidelines (of less they are adopted as such) I have seen many different variations of WP:AIRCRASH from very weak regulations to the conservative ones used today. I have been a member of WP:AVIATION since its inception and we have never had any clear guideline for aircraft incidents. Even as recently as November/December this version has received some criticism; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability#challenge to the guideline. But if we are going to use WP:AIRCRASH perhaps we should look and see if this incident may meet the people criteria, it sound like Donald Brown may be an important person. As for the reliable sources aspect, I would say that the sources out there satisfy WP:GNG. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Brown invented the drop ceiling. That doesn't make him notable. Also, this is something that was covered once in the news. In fact, the article is written like a news article. mynameinc (t|c) 14:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the definitions section at the top of WP:AIRCRASH it says "A notable person or group is one that has their own Wikipedia article.", the person killed in this crash does not have an article according to the Donald Brown dab page. Also, the People section says "If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the person or group" and the specific criteria that you are claiming notability under (P1) says "A standalone article will normally only be appropriate if more than just the notable person or group is significantly involved.".

Regarding the "challenge to the guideline" you cite, nobody has initiated discussion on any specific aspect of the guideline that they feel could be improved in the nearly five months since they were implemented (21 September 2009), despite there being an explicit request for comments at the top of the guidelines. The discussion that ultimately resulted in the current guidelines gaining consensus lasted about 2.5 months (early July to late September). All this, and the numerous times they've been cited in deletion discussions since then, suggests to me that despite being just guidelines they do enjoy consensus. If you have specific comments about one or more of the criteria then please start a discussion at WT:AIRCRASH as requested. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well someone moved WP:AIRCRASH, and the discussion I was referring too sometime within the past 36 hours. But if it truly is the "consensus" then obviously we are taking a a very strong and conservative approach towards such accidents. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

erm, WP:AIRCRASH has not been moved. The discussion you referred to has been automatically moved to the talk page archive by a bot (irrc the settings are that all threads older than 60 days are so moved unless doing so would leave less than three threads on the page. I started two new threads yesterday, so that probably triggered the bot to move the old ones). Discussion has just started again about the guidelines, but so far nobody has commented about changing this particular criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 7 February 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.