Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1993 Llyn Padarn helicopter 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   no consensus. Secret account 03:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

1993 Llyn Padarn helicopter crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:AIRCRASH as it is a military plane and these crashes are quite common. Nothing notable about it. The grounding of the aircraft was temporary.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC) ...William 11:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Military aircraft, especially helicopter, accidents happen relatively often and it takes a truly spectacular/disasterous one to cross the bar of notability, which this does not. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bushranger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishhead2100 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 10 February 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Comments


 * WP:AIRCRASH is not a guideline or policy.


 * Besides the temporary grounding, at least one of the 4 recommendations made by the military inquiry board ("Existing training for Wessex pilots to be enhanced to include tail rotor emergency simulator training.") seems to have been implemented: "As well as SAR pilots, RAF Westland Wessex pilots use the simulator to practice control failures - particularly of the tail rotor.". The reference is way too specific for it to be a coincidence. The article therefore passes WP:AIRCRASH.  This is material that will be added to the article in due time, assuming it isn't deleted before. EDIT:done.


 * The Wessex has had very few crashes. This makes the event notable in itself.


 * To whoever wrote "Delete per Bushranger.": Sign your posts on talk pages!

JaneStillman (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ONLYESSAY. An essay that codifies and clarifies long-standing WP:CONSENSUS is very applicable in a deletion discussion. Also, having very few crashes does not make a crash of a type more notable, at all. This could possibly be merged into the Wessex's article? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the fact that the crash seems to have had a discernible, albeit admittedly not huge, effect on pilot training practices, and therefore qualifies as per WP:AIRCRASH. Also, the article is way too long to fit on the Wessex's page.  The one-liner that's currently there is enough.  But if you want to delete it or merge it or whatever, do as you please.  After all, I do not own the article by virtue of having created it.  JaneStillman (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Very high-profile accident in the United Kingdom, particularly as it was carrying air cadets, and heavily covered in the British media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The accident was notable due to the passengers/casualties and resulted in wide-ranging changes in procedures for experience flights and training of passengers for emergencies. Apart from that there was wide-spread \national news coverage at the time, of the the accident, inquests and BOI.--Petebutt (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete not a particularly notable military accident with the passage of time and out of the news of the day spotlight, sadly involvement of cadets doesnt lift the bar and a number have been killed in non-notable aviation accidents in the past. Could be listed in the Wessex article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is well sourced and easily passes WP:GNG. Most of the delete comments seem to focus on the comparative frequency and lack of notability of military air accidents. This is certainly true in the majority of cases, and indeed most never reach the public consciousness at all. However, this one did. The case is sufficiently notable that there was major national news coverage at the time, and there has been ongoing news coverage of the aftermath and survivor/witness stories for at least a decade since. It has been used as an exemplar in numerous magazine articles and training procedures, and has achieved a level of notability such that it is entirely reasonable to assume there may be someone who has heard of the event and wants more information, without that person being familiar with the specialist press and information sources.  Pyrop e  22:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - While I am generally sympathetic to the argument made by Bushranger, I feel that the grounding of all helicopters of this type in the aftermath of the fatal crash gave this incident a broader, historic importance beyond the actual tragedy itself. Historians of British military aviation may well be looking towards this incident in the future, even if briefly, and that's really the thing that causes this to fall on the Keep side of the inclusion line for me — potential lasting importance, as opposed to ephemeral tragedy. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment it not unusual for the RAF to ground an aircraft type after a fatal accident pending an investigation and a board of inquiry not really a sign of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's also WP:RECENTISM; accidents in the past that would have been shrugged off as "[stuff] happens, now get back out there in the air" now cause weeks- or even months-long groundings, through no technical changes from the past, but rather institutional ones (lower "acceptable risk factor"s). - The Bushranger One ping only 04:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Had the page on watchlist since a saw it in NewPages, it is a hard one, on the one hand it fails WP:Aircrash, there is no claim to being of significance maybe even fails WP:NOT as being just a news report, on the other it comes close to and may even pass WP:GNG, so my question is, is there a target this could be merged to ?  LGA  talk  edits   04:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Westland Wessex would be a supported merge target... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge (or failing that delete) On reflection the coverage is just routine news coverage of the event and the article does not make a case for why this crash is of any lasting significance (so fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:LASTING) however I would support a paragraph or two in Westland Wessex (subject to local consensus) and this as a redirect.  LGA talk  edits   00:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - This was very high-profile at the time and it had long term effects as it instigated change in procedure with this type of aircraft.--Oakshade (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2013 (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.