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. Clear consensus not news applies and this argument has only been opposed by assertion. We can redo this if enduring impact is shown to be The case later on. SpartazHumbug!18:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Small plane crashes are very common and unless there is someone Wikipedia notable killed in it are they notable with only rare exceptions. There is nothing in this article to say otherwise. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?14:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Currently the article has enough sources to confer notability. There is definitely a question of whether such notability will end up lasting, or whether it will be temporary. But, opening an AFD on the article before that answer is clear is premature in my eyes. This article isn't hurting the encyclopedia, nor is it a blight on the site (as it is perfectly sourced as of yet). So, per WP:IAR I'm for keeping this unless it becomes clear (in the future) that this won't have lasting notability. It was picked up by the New York Times today, and the pilot was the grandson of someone who was indeed "Wikipedia notable". As of yet though, we don't even know who the other casualties are so it's basically impossible at this point to say whether this will or will not have lasting notability (and as we are not a paper encyclopedia I don't see a need to wait until such notability is fully established to write an article... deletion is pretty easy if it's found necessary later on). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further note This has been covered in a myriad of reliable sources, including but not limited to Reuters, Canadian Press, Times Columnist, The New York Times, Yahoo News, CBC News, and Global News. Such coverage fully establishes notability per the notablility guideline, and as per WP:NTEMP that notability is not temporary. Anyone arguing RECENTISM applies here, needs to remember that's not a policy any more than OLDISM... as the broad community has not decided that to be its consensus. WP:PERSISTENCE would be a more accurate thing to be pointing to, but even that guideline specifically notes that even while some events are only covered in short news cycles it may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable. Therefore, what I said in my original comment about this AFD being premature still fully stands. Lastly, I would like to note that the sources used in this article are specifically quite different than WP:SENSATIONAL coverage. A few sources did report things before having full official confirmation, but that is to be expected with any news outlet today (and those unconfirmed facts are not in the article as of yet). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Small plane crashes are very common. There are hundreds of them every year. Here are one[2], two[3], three[4], four[5], five[6] recent examples. All of which were picked up by a major media outlet. That it has been reported, all routinely, doesn't make it notable. The grandson, have you heard of WP:NOTINHERITED? Without someone notable on board, this is just another small plane crash....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?22:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and Comment: Notability is not about notable people, it is about having sufficient sources (noted by sources: notable) see WP:NOTE; that there can be found to cite and support the article, it is not about the the famousness of the people, nor the content of the article -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Coffee, this AfD seems premature. This is a significantly covered event with 22 sources and counting, including major news sources. ~riley(talk)04:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – that's such a common occurrence. Of course newspapers will cover it (and indeed the article as it is now reads like a news item), but this event is as worth of inclusion in an encyclopedia as any car accident with fatalities, or indeed any fatal light aircraft crash. --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The original justification for deletion is incoherent and written with poor grammar. If the statement does not meet guidelines it should be disregarded.ThirdTransition (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. While it's true that the question of whether this will have lasting significance or not has not been definitively answered as of just two days later, it's putting the cart before the house to say that fact justifies a keep — we need to have landed on the affirmative side of that question before an article becomes justified at all. It's not our role to indiscriminately maintain an article about every plane crash that happens at all — we keep articles about significant plane crashes that have enduring impact, and twin-engine crashes rarely if ever reach the necessary level of importance. The fact that some sources exist is not a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to meet the significance test, either, because initial news reportage of the crash will always exist for every plane crash whether it's of enduring significance or not — so to make this notable enough for an encyclopedia, what needs to be shown is not "sources exist", but "the sources are already demonstrating a reason why this is of enduring importance", and these sources are not showing that. Is it sad, yes, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site. We don't even have a standalone article about the twin-engine Cessna crash that killed Jim Prentice, but just write about it in Prentice's biographical article — so the fact that the deceased pilot had a notable grandfather hardly makes this more notable than that. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For every reason Coffee said, especially the part that this AfD is premature and can be done in a month or so if nothing notable shows up. Since this article is so new, how do you even know where this is going? I'm sure no one likes their new creation to be stomped on right away (or ever). Note that the creator of the page (TheSandDoctor) is an Administrator AND a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation, so you would think that he knows the Wikipedia guidelines. @WilliamJE, you might want to add an AfD notice to that project at [7]. Normal Op (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep articles pending what might become true in the future; we wait until those things have become true before we start the article. (By the same token, we don't keep articles about as yet unelected candidates for political office during the election campaign on the grounds that they might win the election in the end — we wait until they have won the election before we start their articles.) Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per coffee, I believe this AfD also to be premature. The article has significant coverage from enough reliable sources to confer notability. While it is true that plane crashes are common and do get local coverage, it is not very often that they get coverage from across the nation (Toronto etc) and internationally...on the other side of the continent - some 4900km away - in The New York Times within 24 hours, nonetheless. The NYT doesn't normally write about small plane crashes in another country. Combine this with the fact that The Canadian Press (Canada's version of the Associated Press) started covering this within 4 hours, it reinforces my initial assessment that the notability requirements were met. I will note, to the benefit of WilliamJE, that The New York Times had not yet published its article on this at the time of nomination. --TheSandDoctorTalk21:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor:, first of all if we're talking this article at the NYT, it isn't generated by the Times but Reuters news service. Secondly you severely don't know what you're talking about with the Times. Here's another foreign plane crash article[8] at their website and barely two weeks ago. What we have here is WP:RECENTISM. Small plane crashes happen by the hundred every year. This isn't notable at all now. It isn't likely to change, but how about WP:TOOSOON also....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?22:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not all current events are recentism, besides the point that the link you used says directly at the top "this page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". So please stop using it like it is one. Additionally, you clearly need to read WP:NTEMP. I just did and as such updated my original comment here, as it reads once something has been covered as notable, that state of notability does not change even if that coverage doesn't continue. So, in fact my position is now further towards keeping this than it was before. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zero notability is more than a little hyperbolic. I think it's also ironic that we're here pointing to things that aren't policies and claiming that they are already the current consensus, simply because they should be according to some people. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hypergolic??? Are you expecting it to spontaneously combust?? I can't believe you used the Rabbit's ears. LOL. Why mention it when I already had said it was not policy, running scared?--Petebutt (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Light airplane accidents like this happen by the thousands worldwide each year, and almost all result in no lasting effects beyond the deaths of the people involved - no changes to regulations, no airworthiness directives, fleet groundings, aircraft or procedural changes. There is no indication at this time that this accident is in anyway notable. Just like car accidents, light aircraft accidents are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Newspapers just jump all over them due to WP:SENSATIONAL, but they are not encyclopedic content. - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And no one has suggested a reason why this crash would qualify as a special case, either. If you don't think every twin engine Piper or Cessna crash is inherently notable, then you do need to show a compelling reason why this crash is of special notability over and above most others — because absent a credible reason why this crash should be a special notability case, keeping it automatically means we would have to keep an article about every crash that happens at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong, Bearcat. You assess each individual article based on coverage and sources as the notability criteria says. This one meets the criteria, most others will clearly not do so. Bookscale (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not wrong. Every plane crash always gets some degree of media coverage — so if the sole criterion for the notability of a small twin-engine plane crash is "sources exist", then every plane crash always clears that bar. And if you're not claiming that this one is notable just because "sources exist", but that there's some higher notability bar it's surpassing beyond the mere existence of the media coverage that every plane crash can always show, then you haven't said what that higher notability bar is. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong. This article has more than routine coverage and has reliable sources. That meets the GNG standard set by Wikipedia. It doesn't need any more than that, there is no "standard" for aeroplane crashes that needs to be met if it meets the general notability guideline. Bookscale (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every single plane crash that happens at all can always show some sources, because every single plane crash that happens at all will always get reported as news somewhere. I am not wrong about that, it's a 100 per cent correct statement about the way the world works: plane crashes get reported as news. Which is precisely why we have a longstanding consensus that we do not want to retain an article about every single plane crash that happens at all; we only want to retain articles about plane crashes that pass the ten year test for significance, by having had an enduring impact. The standard is not just "plane crash that has sources", because no plane crash ever doesn't have sources. Bearcat (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coffee and in good faith to the creator of the article. Article meets GNG, and coverage does not seem to be limited at this stage. Bookscale (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every airplane crash that happens at all would always have enough WP:RS to demonstrate notability if "the article has sources" were the only test we applied. I'll grant that jet airliner crashes are virtually always justifiable article topics — but twin engine light aircraft crashes need to show more than just the existence of sources: namely a reason why the crash was of uniquely enduring importance significantly greater than the hundreds of other twin engine light aircraft crashes that happen every year. Bearcat (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was my point above. Due to press sensationalism every airplane crash gets at least some press coverage, but that is why we have a policy exactly against including this, WP:NOTNEWS, which says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Light aircraft crashes happen every day and most have no enduring effects beyond the deaths involved, no changes in procedures, no changes to the aircraft design through airworthiness directives and so on. They are the same as car accidents, bus accidents, train accidents, bicycle accidents, boating accidents, etc. Many of those get some press coverage too, but no one would suggest we have an article on, say, each bicycle accident. They are just "news reporting" and not suitable for an encyclopedia, exactly because there are in general, no lasting effects. - Ahunt (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are the kind of sources I was talking about. Your distinction doesn't actually change a damn thing — every plane crash that happens at all always gets reported as news, which means that every plane crash that happens at all can always show "enough reliable sources" to get over GNG if "sources exist" is the only notability bar they have to clear. Bearcat (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bearcat and Ahunt's comments through the AfD. Routine reportage of a minor aviation incident around the time of the incident is a primary source and is not indicative of enduring encyclopedic notability. Secondary sources after the fact are necessary to prove the claim of encyclopedic notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what a primary source is, according to WP:PRIMARY. Not even the article on primary sources explains it with such reasoning, unless we were to interpret these sources as being written by the witnesses of the crash (which they weren't) or only being written at the time of the crash (which they haven't been, as even just over the past 48 hours more reliable sources [CBC, Vancouver Sun, and Global News & CTV News] covered the story again). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think you can absolutely make the case that news reporting about a current or very recent event is primary. Per WP:PRIMARY - "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." and "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". I think it's entirely reasonable to argue that much news reporting immediately during and after an event falls into the first category, while it is the later editorials, columns, and follow-up pieces that fall into the second and that really serve to establish notability. Hugsyrup13:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in the article indicates it is of note as it is just one of thousands of light aircraft crashes, sad to those involved but no encyclopedic interest. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As always with news events that are tragic, unusual or interesting - and especially plane crashes - they generate enough short-term and/or local press coverage to make it appear as if they pass the GNG. This is precisely why WP:EVENTCRIT lays down additional requirements such as 'enduring significance' or 'widespread impact...and also re-analyzed afterwards'. 'Routine kinds of news events ... whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable'. Tragic but unremarkable crashes of GA and other small aircraft are exactly the type of event intended to be excluded by this criteria. Hugsyrup13:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors here apparently have a crystal ball they aren't sharing, as WP:LASTING specifically states It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. It has not been weeks or months, in fact it hasn't even been a full week yet since the accident transpired. If you are determining something is "unremarkable" within a few days of it happening, it is you who is misinterpreting policy, not the author of this article. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t require a crystal ball to tell me that the crash of a small aircraft, an event of which there are sadly hundreds a year, is not going to have a lasting impact. We can, and should, take a common sense approach to these things or else we would be creating an article for every single news event just on the off-chance it proved notable in a few months’ time. Hugsyrup07:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The slippery slope fallacy is not a logical way to handle our retention of articles on an encyclopedia. We are clearly only discussing this article, not every news story. And your argument also presents a false dichotomy, as this topic was covered by a litany of sources that don't cover "every single news event" and as such it can be entirely common sense to cover this article but to still not cover everything ever released in the news. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- You've got this wrong — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // . I've been involved/seen dozens of deletion discussions on aircraft accidents just like this non notable example. None of them survived. IMHO the only reason this discussion is so long and your here is because an administrator created this article (no disrespect meant to TheSandDoctor). - Samf4u (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another administrator, MilborneOne, is strongly in favor of deletion. MO has done a great deal of aviation accident work. Me, the person who started this AFD, has created 4 dozen aviation crash articles give or take one or two. If the weighing of aviation accident Résumés is being done, far too much weight is being given to the wrong side....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?17:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It in no way matters what userrights each person leaving their opinion here has, nor does it matter what articles each person has created or not. No administrator speaks for us all, and no one editor makes a consensus. These are forms of argument from authority which are fallacious as our only accepted authority in deletion discussions is the community's established policies and guidelines. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use my signature in your reply. That is bad form. If you need to ping me, use the ((ping)) template. I would also highly appreciate it if you didn't tell me why I am here. Not only is that incredibly condescending, attacking my motivations without evidence is a form of ad hominem which in no way strengthens your argument (and it borders on unacceptable behavior). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that your "signature" is long and complex is your problem not mine. You are so over your skis on this you can't even rebuttal the crux of my argument. This accident is not notable but you continue to badger anyone who disagrees with you. - Samf4u (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Samf4u: The complexity of coffee's signature has nothing to do with it(?). I would recommend reviewing WP:PING, but in short all you have to do is ((ping|username)) (and ensure that you sign your comment) to ping someone (e.g. ((ping|coffee)) or ((ping|TheSandDoctor))). Never do you have to copy their signature (it is bad form and doing so could be interpreted as signature forgery). --TheSandDoctorTalk05:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, I wasn't aware replying was considered badgering now. That's quite the paradox of a statement you have there too, because you apparently wanted me to reply to some "crux" of an argument you had... (which if I may point out was simply another fallacious use of an appeal to authority, as your observations of previous discussions do not make a consensus) yet at the same time are implying I shouldn't respond at all. I will also note that my replies to others in this discussion have been about entirely different points. I am not just sitting around repeating myself again and again. So, please... quit with the misrepresentations. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING. No enduring notability or lasting effect, this much is clear already barring some outlandish conspiracy. There is no point retaining articles about routine events if there is no realistic chance of them becoming non-routine. ----Pontificalibus14:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly: I would not even have bothered writing this article as it is obviously of no use to Wikipedia! Secondly : IF I HAD written it, I would expect it to be, at best, AfD'd, as is the case! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 02:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Private plane crashes are relatively common and because of the small size of such planes the number of fatalities is also low. If a lasting impact emerges, then the article could be recreated. Brandmeistertalk22:13, 20 December 2019 (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.