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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NC16002 disappearance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

An overloaded aircraft with defective electrics went missing in 1948. The wreckage was not found. It was mentioned in a list on a TV programme. There are no independent sources cited which are primarily about this incident, and that is not a big surprise because as aviation incidents go it is wholly unremarkable. I am unsure why we even have this article, unless it's because with a stretch of the imagination one might assert that it vanished in the Bermuda Triangle - although evidence for its being there seems to be as thin as evidence that anything else happened beyound a perfectly routine crash. The DC3 was a pretty good aircraft, but postwar air transport firms were far from punctilious about miantenance, as this account makes abundantly clear, and an engine failure would hardly be surprising. Anyway, lack of substantive independent sources is the problem here. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, this link [1], prominently featured within the article, and titled as the Official Civil Aeronautics Board report of the accident, does not count as a primary, independent source, according to Guy's logic. Is this the quality of Wikipedia at work, where idiots pretend to be qualified editors who "know" what they're talking about?

• Keep, airline crashes with dozens of fatalities are generally notable, and there are three newspaper stories and an investigation report cited. What do you mean no independent sources? Even 'perfectly routine' crashes get articles, because they are notable events well-covered in media and other reliable reports. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So where are the multiple non-trivial reliable sources about this crash? Fatalities were far less unusual back in the 1940s, after all. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean the four already cited in the article? The first one is a front page story in the new york times! Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Almost every other fatal air-crash has an article, it's notable enough. It happened before internet but still seems sources and verifiable. Ben W Bell talk 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just because it happened 50+ years ago doesn't make it any less encyclopedic than if it happened today with insta-news and blogs etc. We have to break the notion that if it's old it's not notable because the web doesn't have zillions of ghits. Carlossuarez46 22:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the "mystery" aspect should probably be toned down under WP:UNDUE, but the crash itself was noteworthy and made national news, and the article cites multiple reliable sources. It should be cleaned up, not deleted. *** Crotalus *** 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Considering that this is a well referenced article on an unsolved air crash, I can't think of any justification whatsoever for this nom. Maybe the nom belives that wikipedia should just cover current events, but I think one of the goals here as an encyclopedia should be to cover all notable air crashes, whether they happened this week or in 1948. --JJay 23:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't understand why this was nominated. Vague assertions that stuff that happened in the olden days doesn't matter aren't enough to justify the deletion of an article which is properly sourced and clearly notable. Deleting something on wikipedia because it doesn't have enough references on the internet is looking at things backwards, articles like this are the very reason why wikipedia is useful.Nick mallory 02:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. I really don't know why nominating an article that's got at least four solid references in it makes sense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This meets notability standards pursuant to Wikipedia precedent for air accidents. Attribution doesn't have to be to online sources, and in cases such as this attribution to paper sources might be better. --Charlene 18:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The three New York Times articles seem to be about the crash, so this meets the notability guidelines with flying colors. It doesn't seem to push the Bermuda Triangle connection excessively, although it may need monitoring to ensure that remains true... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep 32 people died (we must assume) - that's a pretty big disaster. Which are inherintly notable. As are airliner crashes involving fatalities. Cites more sources than a lot of rubbish here on Wikipedia does. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:27, 10 May 2007 (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.