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 consensus is to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Smoky Mountains helicopter crash

[edit]

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

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS. Of no long term impact. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself reviewed this, certainly nothing else suggestive of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The event caused an investigation that is ongoing, therefore it fits in WP:EVENT. It also had the second highest fatality rate of any aviation incidents this year in the United States, and one of the highest in the world as of now. There was lots of coverage by many major news sources. It is a notable event that fits in the criteria. Beejsterb (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already mentioned in 2016 in aviation. News coverage alone is not always indication of notability per WP:NOTNEWS. Crashes of private or company aircraft are usually non-notable, unless there was a lasting effect, a really high number of deaths or a notable person aboard. Brandmeister^talk 10:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS Kristijh (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fatal aircraft crashes worldwide result in an investigation; all fatal car crashes are investigated in the country I live in. Just about anything will generate at least some news coverage these days - an aircraft crash in Sydney in which I was a passenger and which resulted in no injuries at all was mentioned in the Singapore Straits Times as well as local news. We also have the 2016 man-punched-on-a-train incident which generated a very large amount of news coverage. Which is a long-winded way of agreeing with Brandmeister when he says news coverage alone is not always indication of notability. If it is the second-deadliest air crash in the USA this year, then all I can say is the USA is having a good year in terms of aviation safety; however the statement 'one of the highest in the world as of now' is frankly crap and "deaths=notability" is not a guideline for having an article on WP. YSSYguy (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS, as stated above. Kierzek (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, WP:NOTNEWS applies. Since there is no other area where this event is notable, it stands that deletion is warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - light aircraft accidents like this are a daily occurrence, just not notable as there is no lasting effect beyond the fatalities. - Ahunt (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Sad, yes. but WP:NOTNEWS, and lacking sources other than local newspapers--Petebutt (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commercial tourism flight involving deaths. This is the epitome of a notable air crash. See also Air New Zealand Flight 901 - very similar class of event, and that was certainly notable. A lack of coverage is not an automatic guarantee of non-notability; see e.g. the coverage extent for 2016 Sunbird Aviation crash. Leondz (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot seriously think this is similar to one of New Zealand's worst disasters in which a Douglas DC-10 airliner with hundreds of people on board crashed into Mt Erebus in Antarctica; about which books have been written and documentaries have been made and still gets coverage, almost forty years later. YSSYguy (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's a productive tone :) In the neutral context of air crashes, notability, and encyclopedic categorisation, there are plenty of similarities, which I am sure you can see. Leondz (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I can't, other than they are air crashes - you might as well say that a Citroen 2CV is the same as an M1 Abrams tank because they are both motor vehicles. Nobody is going to write a book about this helicopter crash. On the other hand, The Erebus enquiry: a tragic miscarriage of justice, The Erebus papers: edited extracts from the Erebus proceedings with commentary, Flight 901 to Erebus, Impact Erebus, Verdict on Erebus, White out! and Psychological sequelae of operation overdue following the DC10 aircrash in Antarctica. That is what notability looks like. It also looks to me that the Sunbird Aviation crash article warrants examining at AfD. YSSYguy (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are plenty of aircrashes that nobody is going to write a book about - like 2016 Sunbird Aviation crash, and the majority of the articles in the category, really. The loss of life was greater at Erebus, for sure, but last I checked there was no ghoulish minimum body count for notability. Conversely, if I write and publish a paper on this event, does its intrinsic notability change? Impossible - the two are disjoint. Thanks for chiming in anyway! Leondz (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you have it published in a reliable source, as opposed to say your own blog, then it will help establish notability, but it still doesn't change the reality that light aircraft crashes with this number of deaths are extremely common events, just as automobile crashes with this number of deaths are also. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable helicopter crash. Mjroots (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2016 (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.