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 keep. Many arguments on both sides did not address sourcing, and as such were marginally helpful at best, but those which did indicated that coverage was significantly wider than local and demonstrated that there is sufficient source material. Whether this is more appropriate as a standalone article or a subsection of another should be discussed further as there is no clear consensus on that here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2013 Soldotna Airport Turbine Otter crash[edit]

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

A non-notable light aircraft accident that fails to make WP:AIRCRASH and more critically the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The accident received the usual press coverage for a couple of days and then was ignored as all news events quickly are. There is no indication that this accident will result in changes to Air Traffic Control procedures, Federal Aviation Regulations, the issuance of Airworthiness Directives or Service Bulletins or have any other lasting effects. The NTSB is investigating, but this is not significant in itself in that they investigate all commercial accidents with fatalities as a matter of course. Globally dozens of light aircraft accidents like this one happen everyday and are similar to automobile and small boating accidents in that they are not individually notable. Please note that "keep" arguments should not be made on an emotional basis but should show how this accident has lasting consequences and thus does not violate the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Ahunt (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The issue here is that the NTSB was concerned because ferry services are held to higher standards than normal airline flights, so I would like to have it here for a few more weeks to see if anything comes out of this. Regardless, thank you for nominating it for deletion four minutes after I declined the PROD. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment: The discussion about this article at WikiProject Aircraft resulted in a consensus to take it to AfD. I just thought I would try going the WP:PROD route to see if there were any objections first, knowing that we would probably have a full debate on the future of the article here at AfD regardless. Also what the ref you are referring to said was "the plane was an air taxi, which is held to a higher standard than general aviation aircraft", not that air taxi is held to a higher standard than airline flights. This is the same as saying that ground taxi cabs are held to a higher standard than private cars. In both cases it is true, but it doesn't impact the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER in any way. - Ahunt (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Oh god, sorry about misrepresenting the article as I forgot that. In terms of this, I guess we could always do REFUND if need be if it gets deleted. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls" - why aren't you notifying all the other projects "within whose scope this article falls"? What happened to notifying the Alaska project? Dubious. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They got notified about 2 minutes later by Gene93K, as you can see. Play the ball and not the man. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to the airport article, as the airline doesn't seem to have an article. (as a summary already exists at the airport article, this is effectively a redirect to the airport result) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I already solved the 'doesn't seem to have an article' part (unless it gets deleted). Antonio The Pro Martin (la habla) 09:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep there's no rush to delete this article as the investigation is still ongoing and may well result in changes to procedures etc. In fact, this article implies that the authorites are looking very seriously into why so many accidents occur in Alaska. Besides, WP:AIRCRASH is just a project writing guide, nothing more. I'm surprised that a crash which killed 10 people wouldn't be deemed notable enough for the aviation project, but then again, perhaps I'm not. In general terms this is a notable event that has clear verifiable reliable sources to back it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, because the notability guideline for events is not met: there does not seem to be any ongoing coverage. All there is are initial news reports, which is not sufficient as the base of a Wikipedia article per WP:NOTNEWS. This air taxi crash (regardless of its death toll) is of no importance to the aviation industry, and as such finally also fails the WP:AIRCRASH guideline.--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Well WP:AIRCRASH is just one project's view of what is notable. There are other Wikiprojects involved in this article. I imagine this would be a notable event in the eyes of Wikiproject Alaska for instance. It's not all about the aviation project. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it fails the notability guidelines for events, doesn't it fail for all projects? (I know one or two projects claim their own precedence over GNG but not many.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My point is that AIRCRASH isn't Wikipedia's notability guideline for articles, it's a ready reckoner against which articles which may be assessed for consideration for deletion. I would have imagined that the lasting impact to Alaska and changes that may occur within the way air taxis operate in Alaska will be significant. But as usual there's a rush to delete the article before even the investigation is complete and recommendations published. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, we don't need the WP:AIRCRASH guideline. But that's why I based my reasoning on the WP:EVENT policy. So far, there is just no evidence of any "lasting impact to Alaska" (otherwise, the situation might look different). For the time being, one could thus also apply WP:TOOSOON.--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And we could equally apply WP:DEADLINE as the report is yet to be released with any potential recommendations. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. The report is pretty much WP:ROUTINE, as any aviation accident is followed by an investigation. Just the fact that there will be a report does not establish notability.--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I missed the publication of the report, the findings and conclusions, could you link me to that please? Otherwise, what's the rush in deleting this article? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:SHUTUPWITHWPSALREADY — Lfdder (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with Soldotna Airport. Yes, we have a lot of small plane crashes up here, but they usually don't result in ten people dying. Two entire families and the owner of this small airline were all lost. That is not an everyday small airplane crash, and that would be why national news outlets such as CNN actually covered this crash, unlike most other Alaska small plane crashes which are unfortunately an all too common occurrence due to the heavy use of air travel up here. There is and will continue to be ongoing coverage of this, but the NTSB doesn't just issue findings overnight, it will take some time before the cause of the accident is made official. If this is not enough to maintain a stand-alone article there is no reason it can't be covered in the article on the airport, such articles often contain a history of notable incidents and in fact this is already mentioned there and could be fleshed out further with the text of this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The number of fatalities in the crash offer a degree of prominence for this type of event. The nominator does not, in my opinion, offer a sound reason to rush this into deletion. At the very least, it could become a subsection of the Soldotna Airport article, as Beeblebrox wisely suggests. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment those suggesting a merge, is that actually a real outcome from an discussion about deletion? I thought this was whether the article was deleted or not, a merge elsewhere is a separate discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I don't know if it's official policy or not, but there's a very longstanding tradition that "merge" and "redirect" are possible outcomes of a deletion discussion, in addition to the official results of "keep", "delete", and "no consensus". --Carnildo (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Possible outcomes - as stated at WP:AFD - are "kept and improved, merged, redirected, incubated, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, transcluded into another page, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There's a cleanup message for an AfD-merge ... ((Afd-merge to)) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Thanks all, I knew that really; remind me not to edit when exhausted from building flat-pack furniture. Anyway, it's certainly looking like no consensus to do anything right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Soldotna Airport, not really anything to Merge over and above what is already mentioned there IMO; and certainly not enough material to warrant an entire seperate article. I stopped arguing AfDs based on AIRCRASH ages ago because it is only an essay, but there are plenty of other guidelines and policies on WP that override the AIRCRASH essay, and IMO this event does not pass the threshold of notability required (and number of deaths is not a criterion for retaining the article). The "significant and widespread ongoing coverage" does not exist, there was a brief flurry of media reports on the couple of days after the crash - as happens for a very large number of events these days - and now they have moved on to other stories. If there does prove to be further and significant coverage of the crash in the future, we can reassess the situation, undo the redirect if that is the consensus, and expand the article. As for "no consensus" now, we have two (one rather weak) 'keep', one 'keep or merge' and a bunch of 'merge or redirect' !votes, and I suspect that the nominator would not be against merging or redirecting either. YSSYguy (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment - No, I would have no objections to that outcome. Despite claims above that there is "no consensus" on this AfD, the basis of the debate was that this article does not meet the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and all the "delete" and "redirect" comments have supported that it does not, which is clearly the case. The "keep" arguments to date have failed to show how this article does comply with Wikipedia policy and have instead relied on emotional or vague arguments. I am confident that the closing admin will weigh those arguments appropriately. - Ahunt (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - It would be helpful if the nominator refrained from accusing editors of presenting "emotional or vague arguments". It's a recurring theme with the nominator and is patronising to those who contribute here. Please allow editors to express their opinion without your psych assessments. Of course you're entitled to be confident, you must be genuinely pleased with the number of articles you've managed to have deleted. Good work, very enriching. And by the way, what is the rush? Why not wait until the report comes out and then assess any recommendations to see how they change the way in which air taxis operate in Alaska? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - User:The Rambling Man: Despite the personal attack and the sarcasm you have presented above, you still haven't shown how this article complies with Wikipedia policy. - Ahunt (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - User:Ahunt, I'm not sure where the personal attack is, your continual references in these AFDs to "emotional or vague arguments" is patronising. It's not a personal attack, it's a comment on your general approach to immediately making those who disagree with your perspective on the defensive. It's a well-used ploy. I've seen it in business and I've seen it here many, many times. You have "not newspaper" as your only reason for deleting this, but yet you're so impatient to delete it you're not prepared to wait for the results of the investigation into the crash? Why the rush? Why the urgency to remove articles from Wikipedia? Why would you want to disappear an article about ten people killed in an accident that's still under investigation? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Alright let's address that argument: All aircraft accidents that happen in first world countries are subject to investigations by national authorities, in this case the US NTSB. These authorities take at least a year to complete their investigations, sometimes much longer. In almost all cases the accidents are found to have human factor causes or other simple failures and almost none result in changes to procedures, airworthiness directives, training, ATC procedures or anything else substantial. What you seem to be suggesting is that we should have articles on all aircraft accidents, in case, in a couple of years the final reports recommend substantial changes and then go back and delete the 99% of accident articles that turn out to be routine and non-notable. This would be reversing the onus of existing Wikipedia policy, which currently says that an event article must be shown to be about something more than just a news story that has no enduring value. We can of course do just that, but we would need commitments to create articles on the dozens of aircraft accidents that happen each day and we would also need to change Wikipedia policy that prevents retaining articles on events that are just mere news stories and indicate that events that are just news stories with no obvious long term effects are to be retained, in case they do develop long term effects, as determined by future reports due out in one to three years. Now, of course, this is not the venue to discuss changing that policy. For now we are just discussing whether this article does comply with the existing policy or not and no one yet has presented a case that it does. - Ahunt (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Okay, thanks User:Ahunt. You've made some interesting points, mostly prophesy and your own opinion, but it's now down to the community to decide. You've decided there is a deadline and others disagree. Time to move onto another proposed candidate for deletion, I'm sure the aviation project won't have to wait too long. Let's just leave it here. (Sorry, forgot to sign. Just passed by the "Aviation project" and looked at the discussions there... just deletion after deletion after deletion proposal... mostly unsuccessful. Speaks for itself). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep for now per Rambling Man's substantive points, above. Coverage continues: AP story from a few days ago [1] again refers to the potential implications of this crash for Alaska's essential air taxi services. If coverage really does die away, we can always consider a merge later but right now it seems to me that it's more constructive to maintain the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Indeed. This article is helpful too, highlighting it was the worst civilian air-crash in Alaska in at least 25 years. In another article from just a week ago, we learn wreckage has been sent to Washington and Phoenix to investigate the cause. This is clearly an ongoing event and quite why there's such a rush from the aviation project, in particular User:Ahunt, to delete it, is curious. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are - either deliberately or accidently - misrepresenting that story. It says one of the worst, not the worst, and it's a blog not an article; leaving that aside for a moment, it was written the day after the crash, so overall you haven't done very well in arguing that there has been significant ongoing coverage in reliable third-party sources have you? The article referred to by Arxiloxos also does not state what s/he says it does, in that it does not "[refer] to the potential implications of this crash for Alaska's essential air taxi services". YSSYguy (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The AP article first reports that the crash evidence is being reviewed, then notes the importance of air taxis to the state, as Beeblebrox did above. Perhaps you find the connection too indirect. But we also have the comments last week of NTSB member Earl Weener, reported by both Occupational Health and Safety Magazine[2] and by local Alaskan media [3], the latter of which reports that Weener "suggests that their investigation isn’t simply to answer questions for those mourning the ten people lost on board; Weener hints at future changes for aviation in Alaska, writing: 'It’s crucial to understand what happened so we can help improve aviation safety for a state which relies so heavily on all manner and make of aircraft.'"--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep 1. There were 10 people dead, I've seen accidents with less deaths written about here. 2. This accident did receive extensive media coverage. --Antonio Miss Peru Martin (loser talk) 11:59, 23 July, 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I note that you have moved the article to 2013 Rediske Air Otter crash. Ideally the article should not have been moved in the middle of an AfD discussion to avoid confusion. This could have been done after the debate is closed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment My apologies, Ahunt. I had not noted the debate before I moved it, at least AFAIR, and your comment will be fully noted next time I move an article. - Antonio Please don't change my Signature Martin (loser talk) 14:32, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge/redirect to the airport article. At present there is nothing encyclopaedic to be said about the accident beyond what is said there. If there are significant and notable changes to anything as a result of the investigation that can not be summed up by the simple noting on relevant pages in the single sentence "Following the crash of a Turbine Otter at Soldotna airport in 2013 that killed 10 people, X was changed to Y." or something like that, then there will be scope for an article. At the moment though all we have is people "hinting" that there might be changes which is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge/redirect To the airport article. There is no current changes as a result, but this has resulted in deaths. Airplanegod (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Oh, did the report come out? Can you link it please? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. An aircrash killing ten people is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I am seeing a lot of these sorts of arguments here, that people died so the event must be notable, but this argument doesn't amount to more than WP:ILIKEIT as the article clearly doesn't meet the policy for an article as outlined in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:EVENT. I don't think many people would argue to keep an article about a bus, van or boat crash in which there were ten deaths and no other lasting significance. To successfully argue that the article should be kept requires that you show how those arguing that it doesn't comply with policy are mistaken and, that, in fact, this article does meet the Wikipedia policy for articles. - Ahunt (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you once again for re-iterating your view of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please assume good faith in our editors who contribute here rather than continually browbeat them for expressing opinions. In all honesty, badgering those who oppose your perspective is now becoming somewhat disruptive. I'd stop doing it really. By the way Asiana Airlines Flight 214 lost just three lives and made it to ITN. Are you arguing we should delete that too? I look forward to the AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. A scheduled 777 flight is very different than a chartered DHC-3; 2. WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Why exactly? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I don't think many people would argue to keep an article about a bus, van or boat crash in which there were ten deaths". Well, I for one would and have done. There is no real Wikipedia policy for individual articles - their notability is determined by discussion, like the one we're having. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is yet another situation where context is important. Number of deaths is not the only deciding factor, but it is certainly in the mix. The 2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash killed fewer, but one of them was a former Senator, so there was no doubt it was notable. Just a week or so before this crash there was another fatal crash but it was a private plane flying in bad wheather so there's not much particularly notable about it. This crash is described in press accounts as the worst aircrash in Alaska in a decade. In a place that relies heavily on air transport, where even the smallest town has an airport and a few small airlines/air taxis that is significant, and the press coverage reflects that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The aircrash guidelines are well intentioned, but there is usually sufficient interest in crashes that kill more than 2 or 3 people. Applying it to this one carries it too far. The guidelines of a subject group are valid only to the extent the community wishes to follow them, and there's always been sufficient dispute about articles in this area that I do not think they have the status of a de facto guideline (I tend to respect de facto guidelines once they've become established, whether or not I personally agree with them, in order to minimize the number of articles that need discussion) . The AP story referred to above is enough to show the general significance, and if it is important for other reasons than the narrow aircrash guidelines, it's notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Ten people died in this crash. All notable crashes get their own articles. Category:21st-century aviation accidents and incidents You want to make a decision about this, then you need to discuss them all, not just try to pick off one at a time now and again. Dream Focus 18:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy on events, while this no doubt got news coverage in the US, but not seeing anything outside there , nothing in the article or in any of the sources I have looked at suggest that this is going to have any lasting or significant effect on aviation (see WP:EVENT) and until there is evidence of such a line or two in the article on de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter is all that is needed. LGA _talk^edits 00:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Did you look to see if it had news coverage outside the US? UK, Australia, France, India.... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes but was looking for stuff after the day of the crash, to demonstrate coverage duration. LGA _talk^edits 06:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, sorry, I thought you said it had had no coverage outside the US. My mistake. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question for the AIRCRASH fans, if this is not notable, why, then, does it meet the notability requirements for inclusion on the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft page? Double standards perhaps? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because the requirements for a stand alone WP article are different for those dealing with content inclusion on exiting articles. As WP:NOTNEWS says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." .... "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" as it stands this is just that newsworthy but not of enduring notability. LGA _talk^edits 06:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But inclusion in that list is wholly dependent on the article existing. It exists and meets the notability requirements of the list. I suppose, if you wish to delete this, it would beg the question how many other entries on that page should be deleted. Interesting! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Meets the GNG The Steve 08:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge and redirect to Soldotna Airport, so the article can be easily revived if and when there is ongoing coverage. Miniapolis 15:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[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.