Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Cessnas collision
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 delete per consensus; WP:AIRCRASH. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 2008 Cessnas collision
These are regular-ish occurences in general aviation. They do hit each other from time to time. If this exposes a massive flaw in Air Traffic Control operations I would reconsider, but for now I think this isn't quite notable enough. Please also see the draft notability guidlines produced by WP:AIRCRASH and the list of past AfD debates collected there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing here to suggest this event is particularly notable from an encyclopedia perspective. In the event this is kept, it needs a better title. 23skidoo (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom - nothing make it unusual or notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. - BillCJ (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I don't like the per nom statement, but this is a time when there isn't anything else to say except that. Per nom. Soxred93 (u t) 20:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Barring other evidence of notability, only fatal incidents on scheduled commercial flights are normally worthy of inclusion. Other types of incidents are simply too common. --Dhartung | Talk 20:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep My initial idea would have been to merge to Mid-air collision, but that's a list of incidents of which this is a part. While collisions in which one of the two planes is taking off or landing can be described as "regular-ish", it actually is unusual for two aircraft to collide in midair (and in this case, to rain debris over a populated area, killing someone on the ground). I'll register a "weak" keep, however; even after all of the edits that have been made, there's only one news story linked from the day after the accident, and no apparent attempt to follow up. Clearly, I'm in the minority on this one, so I don't know that anyone will bother to improve this. Mandsford (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Red has usually been very good about checking for relevant sources, and I've seen him "save" a few accident articles by adding cites that prove notability. I'm assuming he did some checking before making the nom, but he hasn't mentioned it. If such sources can be found at some point that show the lasting effects of the incident, the I'd support keeping then, or even restoring it if it's already been deleted. SOmetimes it takes awhile for events to have an effect, esp when buracracies are involved. PS, I've no experience in this type of research, and have a full plate with other WP matters, so I'll have to rely on others to do the research. - BillCJ (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've done a little more digging and expanded manly from the NTSB report, but it has only served to make me feel this is even less notable. Uncontrolled airspace = no ATC blunders. No evasive action = no sign anyone realised easily avoidable accident was coming. That also means we may never know exactly what happened and if we do it was likely a lapse in concentration from both of those flying at once, with tragic consequences. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Red has usually been very good about checking for relevant sources, and I've seen him "save" a few accident articles by adding cites that prove notability. I'm assuming he did some checking before making the nom, but he hasn't mentioned it. If such sources can be found at some point that show the lasting effects of the incident, the I'd support keeping then, or even restoring it if it's already been deleted. SOmetimes it takes awhile for events to have an effect, esp when buracracies are involved. PS, I've no experience in this type of research, and have a full plate with other WP matters, so I'll have to rely on others to do the research. - BillCJ (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Fails notability criteria (no notable people involved). See this AfD discussion for details of notability criteria. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable incident. Press coverage cited is nothing beyond routine. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per all the above, besides what is the spelling variation used here for the title? If it was a keep, imagine every accident report being posted, sigh... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2008 (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.
