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 MERGE and REDIRECT Consensus to merge content into CommutAir article and redirect this title. Mike Cline (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommutAir Flight 4821[edit]

CommutAir Flight 4821 (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)

There is no indication in the article or the reference provided that this accident meets any of the notability criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. I've additionally not been able to find any other sources that demonstrate any reason for notability per these guidelines.

The article was previously prodded by user:YSSYguy with the concern "Notability is not established". The PROD tag was later removed by user:WhisperToMe with the comment "When people die in a plane crash, it becomes notable". However this is not a standard of notability supported by either by the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines (which are still in beta), nor any proposed alteration to them that has been raised on the talk page since discussion started on replacing the old guidelines in July 2009. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as a single, albeit unfortunate event, that fails to demonstrate any notability for encyclopaedic inclusion. Eddie.willers (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable, fails to meet guidelines for inclusion at WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Any scheduled airline flight where people die should be considered notable, if sources can be found. The project definition is just an essay, not even an attempted guideline, and is much too restrictive. However, this flight meets the criterion in that essay: "Airworthiness Directives - the accident/incident resulted in one or more official bodies issuing an Airworthiness Directive (AD) or similar" see [1], By their proposal in the essay, it should be merged to a section in the article on the airplane DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious redirect to CommutAir. The revisions to WP:AIRCRASH do not mean that we delete everything that we think doesn't meet it. What they do mean is that we relocate the information elsewhere. Mandsford (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second this idea, for the same reasons. dude❶❽❶❽ Can or can't you read the characters? Tell me --> talk page 01:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay of a wikiproject so AfD is far from bound by it. This is more than a mere news event. It appears to have resulted in litigation [2]. This report also indicates that the crash resulted in regulatory change. It is significant, and notable. Air crashes are usually quite well-document so it would be unusual for a fatal air crash not to be significant enough and covered in enough reliable sources not to be notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Firstly, what Mkativerata said. Secondly, in practice, whenever someone dies in a commercial airliner crash, that crash becomes notable no matter what. Litigation always happens. Accident reports are always written. Significant coverage always occurs. Because of this, "Delete" and "Obvious redirect" are never appropriate outcomes for these articles. No, this is not an article to be redirected under any circumstances. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Accident reports are always written. Significant coverage always occurs." this is exactly why these things are not sufficient on their own to demonstrate notability. Not every air accident is notable, and so some guidelines are set out at WP:AIRCRASH to help separate the wheat from the chaff. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Mkativerata made a very good case for it and I believe that if the resulting policy change is added, then it would be a bit more notable and be consistent with other such articles. --Hourick (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to an article that contains a short explaination of the crash, either the airline or the airliner article. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I originally prodded the article because as it stood notability was not established and as yet I see nothing in the article or this discussion to change my mind. DGG's and Mkativerata's assertions that the NTSB letter is evidence of regulatory change are not necessarily correct; it is a recommendation for regulatory change and Airworthiness Regulators (in this case the FAA) can - and often do - decide not to act on such recommendations, which are frequently made by accident investigation bodies following accidents. If it can be demonstrated that the FAA did act on the NTSB letter and issue an AD, then that should be prominently mentioned in the article and it would become a keeper. YSSYguy (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the flight was a scheduled flight, not an air taxi operation. Per the sources given above, it does meet WP:AIRCRASH criteria. (A3, A6). Just about notable enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Same argument as User:Mjroots. The article meets WP:AIRCRASH criteria. --Armchair Ace (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Regrettably keep, as consensus has deemed that any commercial flight crash where someone dies is notable. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is this consensus? It's not one that I've seen evidenced anywhere, and it hasn't been suggested in any of the discussions about WP:AIRCRASH. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. There is no consensus that 'deaths'='notability', not here, not at WP:AIRCRASH. Clicking on the news results at the top of this section gives a grand total of 2 news items, just a couple of loud voices, as I see it. If deaths "always" create lots of coverage, why don't we see it in this case. The 'AD' argument also fails. Note that the specific AD example used in AIRCRASH was a section of an article. So merging this incident to someother article (e.g. the airline) makes sense. David V Houston (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to the aircraft (or airline) article. There is no encyclopedic information available, so per WP:NOT#NEWS it cannot have a stand-alone article. Abductive (reasoning) 21:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'AD' argument does not apply as there is no Airworthiness Directive against the radome installation on the Beech 1900 series of aircraft. I cannot find an Advisory Circular either. It is possible that the issue is one of insufficient maintenance on the part of the operator, but that is pure speculation on my part, derived from a lack of evidence that this is a fleet-wide problem. YSSYguy (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per both User:DGG and User:Mjroots above, as a fairly sourceable scheduled flight. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topics that are the subjects of articles are required to be notable in addition to being verifiable, so simply being "fairly sourceable" is not sufficient grounds for keeping this article. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake, "fairly" was meant to mean 'amply'; as in, sourcing seems just adequate enough to establish notability and verify content. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to CommutAir#Incidents and accidents, if the article could be expanded then I would say keep it. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to CommutAir#Incidents and accidents. The incident does not seem to provide material enough to warrant a separate article apart from what is present at CommutAir#Incidents and accidents. Nageh (talk) 15:07, 21 April 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.