Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downend air crash

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Downend air crash

Downend air crash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Does not appear to have been a notable air crash. 15 people perished when a Britannia Bristol 301 crashed near Bristol due to mechanical failure. Did not appear to have resulted in any action by the authorities. Gsearches with the words 'Britannia' 'Bristol' '301' 'crash' did not give any meaningful results irrespective of where the double quotes were put: All hits were from wiki or wiki mirrors, except 2 links to databases specifically dedicated to air-crashes. This accident is simply not notable; Wikipedia is not a memorial. DeleteOhconfucius 06:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Smerge with Bristol Britannia. Apparently there was only one prototype of this specific type, according to the Bristol Britannia article. Certainly worthy of a mention. --- RockMFR 06:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect with partial merge to Bristol Britannia, worth a mention as a significant accident, but we don't have enough information for a full article. We don't include passenger lists, and the rest can be summarized in a sentence or two in the plane article. The other reference is [1], by the way. It has a fuller description of the crash. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We have several articles about air crashes with fewer fatalities than this, and I believe fatal crashes of aircraft the size of a Bristol Britannia are notable. For another reference which might have some more information, check out this entry on the aviation-safety site. (The list of casualties can go however, it is true that Wikipedia is not a memorial, and we have traditionally not included such lists in our disaster articles.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: other articles are irrelevant, see WP:INN. Xtifr _tälk 11:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm... interesting essay but I do think it is fair to look and compare the article which is being discussed with other articles on similar subjects. Some consistency is fair because a reader might wonder "why do you not have an article on this, when you have an article on that?" Now, on AFD there is some precedent on aviation incidents, but generally the ones I have seen deleted are either those on crashes that involved a small general aviation aircraft, or those which are about emergency landings and other incidents where the plane and passengers were not in any real danger. In fact, incidents involving large aircraft which were in grave peril are frequently quite notable, even if the outcome was nonfatal. In this case we have an article on a large aircraft disaster with as many as 15 fatalities, and I think the only reason there is not more internet coverage on it is that it happened a long time before the internet was conceived. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment There is a feeling that accidents to commercial aircraft (as opposed to incidents, which are minor events where nobody dies and the aircraft is not substantially damaged) are inherently notable. Also, the first accident involving a specific model, any terrorist attacks, accidents that have a significant impact on any field (air traffic control, design, manufacturing standards, etc.), or historically significant accidents are usually considered notable. An accident that caused four deaths may be notable if it makes a major airline sell off part of its fleet, for instance. --Charlene 23:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in general for aircrashes with many civilian casualties (those always get a lot of contemporary media attention). Keep in particular this one since it seems to be verifiably notable even with Google, as evidenced by the links given above (certainly the Aviations safety one), and this 60 minute documentary made about it by 1st Take[2]. There was an article about it in issue 63 (summer 1995) of the magazine"Propliner"[3], but I am not able to check the actual contents (perhaps someone else will be able to do this).
• Keep; precedence is important, and major airplane crashes with more than a dozen or so fatalities are rare and noted (by the magazine article noted by the person above, for example), hence notable.--Prosfilaes 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable because: a) it was the first accident of the Britannia (generally, first accidents of commercial aircraft models are considered notable); b) the probable cause of the accident prompted changes in how a manufacturer handled quality control; and c) the accident was another nail in the coffin for the Bristol Aeroplane Company, which shortly after the Britannia crash ended up being forced into a merger. --Charlene 23:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. Notable for extent of fatalities and for history of model and manufacturer. --Dhartung | Talk 03:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Airliner crashes with multiple fatalities often recieve enough coverage to write an encyclopedia article around. Ergo notable, ergo keep. --Jayron32 05:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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.