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. Sandstein 07:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Snowdonia helicopter crash[edit]

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

Not notable small aircraft crash. WP:NOTNEWS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:10, 30 March 2017 (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? 14:11, 30 March 2017 (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? 14:11, 30 March 2017 (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? 14:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:RUNOFTHEMILL light aircraft crash. No indication this was anything other than the weather-related crash of a light aircraft, a daily occurrence worldwide and no more notable than a car accident in which five people died. No indication of any lasting effects here, no indication of any wiki-notable people involved, no indication of changes to airworthiness procedures or ATC procedures, no indication of any lasting effects. The news media pounce on this just because it involves an aircraft, but this is covered under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[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) 14:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I created the article and Ahunt makes some good points. The aircraft was lost on radar over the Caernarfon Bay but found quite far inland, so has an interesting angle to it. That said, if deletion it is; so be it. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Ahunt explained not a rare event so really needs something different like a change in regulations or involvement of somebody notable to pass the bar which this doesnt appear to have, sad event for those connected but not encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Eurocopter AS355. This is non-notable event and can be covered in the helicopter article if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Ahunt, the incident does not comply with the WP:AIRCRASH criteria. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Temporarily at least. There is something peculiar with this, where an aircraft is lost over the sea (and sparks a sea search) then is found well inland. Especially as the plausible diversions would have been on the coast. I do not know if this will prove to be unusual and complex enough to make this article notable (otherwise I'd agree, it isn't). If it proves not to be, then delete it in the future. But for the moment, I'd keep the article until we know more. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any merge to the type article, unless investigation turns out some systemic fault in the type. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Andy Dingley on not merging - nothing notable to merge here at this time. It does not make the inclusion criteria to be mentioned in the type article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Looks like (BBC Radio 4, 6pm) the last radar contact was still over land (so they simply crashed into high land in poor visbility, rather than returning from over the sea with any sort of gross navigation problem). No reason given why there was initially a sea search. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it turns out to be extraordinary, the article can be recreated with emphasis on the relevant details but delete for now. If we wrote up every event which was slightly puzzling, WikiP would be overwhelmed.TSRL (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it turns out that someone on board was a notable figure. This event is as worthy of inclusion as any five-casualty car crash. --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coastguard article was kept. Don't be so disrespectful to Irish people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.57.52 (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not about being disrespectful to Irish people. The coastguard crash has a different complexion to it. I mixed up the rules to train crash with WP:AIRCRASH. Unless something amazing comes along to make it notable, then it fails under the guidelines. As Andy Dingley points out above, the mystery with the radar has been cleared up. Sorry. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the article. One of the dead was an acquaintance so I did my best to make this article worthy. Here in Ireland it's all over the news so please keep it for now, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.57.52 (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry for your acquaintance, and it was a worthy and good attempt. However, it was as these things go a minor crash, and there are many places other than Wikipedia where a memorial site can be preserved: it's not our function. For now, this is not a suitable topic for the encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The crash is unfortunate, but Wikipedia is not the place for memorials for everyone who dies. See WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - Ahunt (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than a major crash, or at least in Ireland it is. At least leave it for tonight as it is still a developing story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.57.52 (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion will go on for a minimum of seven days before a final consensus is arrived at, so it won't be deleted too quickly. - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Comment It won't dissapear tonight, this discussion will only close seven days after the nomination (unless the consensus to delete is overwhelming, then an early "snow close" may occur). In any event, even if it were to be deleted it can be restored if it becomes notable later. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The BBC have released the names of the people involved and it seems confirmed that these are not people that we have Wikipedia biographies on. - Ahunt (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Imagine, for a moment, a world that doesn't revolve around aircraft geeks. In this world, people's experiences and emotions do not correspond with a prescribed set of fastidious criteria. Instead, a culmination of records help tell the story of the human experience over time. This world is the real world, and these records exist as the media. WP:GNG should always take precedence over WP:AIRCRASH and as it stands, this event meets general notability guidelines (outside of the realm of aircraft geeks). If it turns out that the current significant coverage of the event does not last, then this discussion should be held. This AFD is a case of WP:RAPID. --NoGhost (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have articles on every car accident in which anyone dies? How about boating accidents? Bus accidents? Skateboarding accidents? Do you know why we don't? Because, like light aircraft accidents, these happen everyday and because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. - Ahunt (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not every accident. That's why each topic should be judged on its merits against the general notability guidelines. Some car or boat or light air accidents may be notable due to the relative impact, something that WP:AIRCRASH does not even come close to capturing. At this point, the event is generating significant coverage and the gauge of notability should be to be assess whether this coverage is sustained over time. --NoGhost (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been seven days since the accident and, as is always the case, after the first day or two the news media have moved on and there is no lasting coverage of this story, because there is nothing new to report. It is worth noting that this was just a local UK story - it wasn't run by media in places like North America and it also wasn't run by the global aviation media. These three factors all point to the conclusion that it was just a local news story with no lasting significance. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, it's a large-ish helicopter, but none of its occupants were notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article. Without this factor, the accident misses the notability threshold. Mjroots (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If crashes like this were notable, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force would be its own WikiProject. - ZLEA ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 00:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sMerge to Snowdonia since this is about the history of the park. An itemized list of disasters occurring in the park can be added to the park article. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2017 (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.