Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1963 Rochester air crash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 10:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1963 Rochester air crash

This incident this article describes is not noteworthy as many plane crashes have resulted in low fatalities and not every single one can have an encyclopedia entry. – Zntrip 01:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Crash appeared accidental and no assertion of flight procedure improvements was made. --Targetter (Lock On) 02:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Reversed to Keep per WP:POKEMON. We're already documenting pretty much every crash... --Targetter (Lock On) 01:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Plane crash caused by pilot error with few fatalities. No outstanding circumstances confer notability. —dustmite 02:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Encyclopedic article about verifiable crash of a passenger airliner. FCYTravis 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - keep deaths occured, thus notable. No deaths would make it not notable. Keep per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. Megapixie 03:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per FCYT and Megapixie. Kappa 04:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; factual, verifiable, notable, and the subject of media attention. --MCB 05:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "deaths occured, thus notable"? Are you serious? Dozens of people die every month from airplane crashes, most are single fatalities. Should there be an article about a car crash beacuse someone was killed? – Zntrip 05:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is a difference between fatal crashes on air carriers (passenger and cargo), which are the subject of official investigations, reports, and in-depth news reports, and general aviation (private plane) crashes, which are not necessarily notable in the absence of other factors (famous passengers, unusual circumstances). --MCB 05:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Crashes that resulted in no changes of procedure, no noteworthy deaths, no political consequences and didn't ruin a company just don't rate articles by themselves. (Contrast Airwork Flight 23 above, which barely rates.) Robert A.West (Talk) 07:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete minor air crash due to pilot error. If there were an entry for every car crash due to driver error..... Ohconfucius 10:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Since there is a common theme to this set of airplane crash AfD, there will be an equally common theme to my replies I think it's bad precedence to start putting a "death threashold" for the notability of a plane crash. I would say a crash with any fatality is notable. Ideally entries are written because they will be of encyclopedic interest and value to others to read. A plane crash with fatalities (even a small number) affects alot of a people--the community where the crash took place, people actually involved in the crash as well as friends/families, anyone who is interested in the aviation crash history of a particular airline, and those people who like reading about crashes anyways. Someone was originally interested in the topic enough to write the article in the first place. I can easily see many others who will have continual interest in reading it. 205.157.110.11 10:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing WP:NOT. Lacks multiple non-trivial third-party articles, fails to show any lasting changes in air safety or operations. i get only 15 general Google hits for "1963 mohawk airlines crash", of which only TWO are distinct. The official report only says weather was a factor, with no recommendations. In other words, it happened. I appreciate the feeling that "any fatality" is notable, but WP is not a place to hold a memorial. The fact someone was interested enough to write this article does not give it automatic notability, else nothing would be omitted, and WP is not an indiscriminate collection. Tychocat 11:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per my speedy keep guideline -- scheduled flights with fatalities. Rename to Mohawk Air Flight 121 or similar.--Dhartung | Talk 11:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep-per above. Storm05 19:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename per Dhartung. Sceduled airline crashes with fatalities are notable. Carlossuarez46 21:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup — Appears to be a sub could do with improvement but I see no reason to delete Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I say again, How many people have to die, Admiral?! --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Italicized pleas notwithstanding, the issues can be addressed within WP standards and policies. Can the keep noms do so? Tychocat 04:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep scheduled flight with fatalities. Also rename after it's kept to conform to standard airline incident article names (airline name + flight number). Akradecki 03:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've been (very slowly) working on this task, and this article is already in my crosshairs. The only reason I haven't renamed it yet is I am concerned it could disrupt the AfD discussion. If the result is "keep" or "no concensus," I will rename it. (FYI, I am not voting because I am frankly on the fence about it) --Jaysweet 21:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep For the same reasons as Airwork Flight 23. --- The Bethling(Talk)
  • Keep scheduled flight with fatalities is not unnotable Moheroy 12:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for all the reasons above. bbx 07:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable even if only by WP:POKEMON. Cool3 02:36, 17 September 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.