Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1944 Cheshunt B 24 Bomber 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   delete. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

1944 Cheshunt B 24 Bomber crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

After advising the creator of WP:AIRCRASH, he has said that he feels the article should be deleted. I chose not to speedy it, but to see if other people think the artilce warrants being deleted, which I think it does.  WackyWace  converse 14:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Note: Edison - The aircraft involved was taking part in a combat operation against a Luftwaffe base where the Arado jet bomber/recon aircraft was operating fromPandaplodder (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It doesn't has long standing impact. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesnt appear to be notable enough for a stand-alone article, and listing the crew is a bit WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Combat losses are not normally notable unless they had some effect on the civilian population, which means they really need to be civilian deaths a good example is another B-24 Freckleton Air Disaster. A very large number of aircraft crashed (either in training or combat missions) in the UK during the 1940s and it is difficult not to find an area of Lincolnshire or South East England that did not see any aircraft crash. It may be worth a one-line mention in the Cheshunt article but I suspect it was one of many in the area and not that notable to Cheshunt but it may be worth discussing on the Cheshunt talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Notability. In detail:
 * Significant coverage (sources address the subject directly in detail). Well yes the lowewood.com article is direct and in detail as is the b24.net article.  Plus other sources.  Overall a clear "yes".
 * Reliable (sources need editorial integrity).  The Lowewood Museum is probably going to be reliable and the major on-line sources are written in an in-depth and serious manner.  That noted, I am not personally familiar with the sources.  Not quite as clear as the point above but on balance "yes".
 * Multiple secondary sources. Yes - Lowewood Museum article and Hertfordshire Mercury article which was almost certainly written by one of the newspapers editors.
 * Independent of the subject. As far as we know the Lowewood Museum and the Hertfordshire Mercury articles were not written by relatives/friends of the aircrew.  The principal author of the b24.net did witness the crash but there almost certainly some sources which are fully independent.
 * As for the WP:NOTNEWS argument - this is the first time I have seen it deployed against something which occurred over half a century ago. If the event is still receiving significant attention (outside of Wikipedia) some 60-odd years later then it would clearly seem to be more than a headline in 1944.  Per Notability (events), the crash appears to have depth of coverage, duration of coverage and diversity of sources.
 * As for the WP:NOTMEMORIAL argument - I would suggest that because the article is a little thin at present then list of the casulties possibly appears like a memorial. A quick look at the sources shows that there is plenty of scope of expansion.
 * As for the lack of civilian deaths argument - My view is that it all depends. If there is little coverage, then it's not notable enough for its own article. I suspect that many WW2 crashes fall into this catagory - even some which involved civilian deaths perhaps.  However in this case the crash has had lots of coverage.Greenshed (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, as well as not a memorial, however noble it was to die in service of their country, and not a directory. 10 men died in a non-combat plane crash, out of tens of millions who died in WW2. Wikipedia is not a directory of every death from 1939 through 1945 which was related in some way to the war. Edison (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The crash did not result from any enemy action did it? The plane took off and it crashed due to mechanical failure, still in England. If someone is killed in a vehicle wreck on their way to the battlefield is that a combat death? If so then I will not quibble.  Edison (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Its called War Time Operations, the aircraft was fully bombed up, you obviously don't realise that UK airspace was a war zone until early 1945 when the last air raid occurred Pandaplodder (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment References 3 and 4 of the article do not work. They are dead links. Edison (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The references are still live, just to keep you up to speed with web 2.0 most sites now have a facility to cut referencing links to external sites such as Wikipedia, on checking a few other articles I have found plenty of supposed dead links, so the upshot is just because a reference link on Wikipedia is dead does not mean that the information isn't there, the link is being stopped by the site it is pointing to. This may be done for copyright purposes or merely protecting bandwidth. Unless someone comes up with a new way of referencing then I'm afraid most of the material on Wikipedia will end up being unreferenced. Try this: http://www.b24.net/missions/index.htm then click on August 12 1944 on the calender, this will take you to the same page with all the information that was the reference + it still has the same reference URL, modern technology eh?Pandaplodder (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your "web2.0" gibberish, they are still dead links, and will be removed if not updated to a link which contains the info they are supposed to reference. The links currently in the article do not support the statements made. Edison (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Primarily WP:NOTNEWS and distinctly non-notable despite local sources. There were thousands of aircraft crashes during this period, and this is no more notable than any others. Skinny87 (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete not sufficiently notable, NOTMEMORIAL, NOTNEWS. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment think that it has been already established that WP:NOTNEWS cannot be used against something that happened 66 years ago. As for NOTMEMORIAL I had the information to hand on the crew, I agree that maybe the crew information should be moved to the talk pages. Note: It can be sometimes useful to have crew listings as you never know what a name will turn up, for example a RAF pilot names on a crash record who turns out to be a holder of a higher military award which hasn't got an entry on the list of recipients of that award on Wikipedia.
 * There is a lot of historical detail missing from this article, mainly because it takes time consuming research, these crashes are documented in in books such as RAF Bomber Command Losses of the Second World War: 1944 v. 5 (ISBN-10: 0904597911) (ISBN-13: 978-0904597912) or John Burn One Zero Five: The Story of Chelveston Airfield and the 305th Bomb Group in Pictures. 2005. (ISBN 1-90451-426-X), these are just two examples of sources for information.
 * If its not notable locally then why is the Cheshunt to Goff Oaks road named after the pilot?
 * Can someone please explain this: 1963 Elephant Mountain B-52 crash Pandaplodder (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2010 (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.