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. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Airlines Flight 45[edit]

Eastern Airlines Flight 45 (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)

Poorly sourced article on an event that doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Quite a minor incident and if it happened yesterday rather than 65 years ago, it would probably have found itself at AfD much sooner. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The link to this discussion from the article is a redlink. Mjroots (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Now a bluelink. YSSYguy (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a mid-air collision between a civil airliner and a military aircraft should pass the threshold for notability easily. Article needs expansion, but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not sufficiently notble. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable, but requires expansion. It was incidents such as this that lead to the development of the modern ATC system, for good or ill. - Ahunt (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Expanded with additional details and two more sources. Mark Sublette (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Mid-air collisions are notable because of their rarity, have not waded through WP:AIRCRASH to check (seem to remember seeing it) but that's my take on this article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- William 11:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Eastern Airlines. Mid-airs are actually not all that rare, even now; and a mid-air is not mentioned as a criterion for notability in WP:AIRCRASH. For that matter the accident doesn't really tick any notability boxes in the guidelines. Without knowing for sure, I would think that post-war mid-airs such as the one over the Grand Canyon would have been more of an impetus to change the ATC system rather than one of many wartime mid-airs - I doubt that it is possible to know one way or the other as to whether this accident led to changes in the ATC system. As an aside, if the consensus is to keep, the article is quite poorly-written and will need some editing to correct this. YSSYguy (talk) 04:08, 1 August 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.