Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994 Lake Constance Cessna 425 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

1994 Lake Constance Cessna 425 crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable general aviation accident. That some media outlets got the story wrong doesn't make this notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete doesnt appear to be a particularly noteoworthy crash, certainly doesnt justify a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep a Cessna crashing into a lake is indeed on its own not very notable. However the surrounding media coverage imo can be regarded as significant give it was widely covered internationally for a considerable period. While media probably overhyped aspects of it, the “scare” was confirmed by authorities who monitored nuclear contamination throughout. So this makes it stand out from ordinary light aircraft accidents. As far as notability for events is concerned, the case expands to the present with reflections and reviews or is being cited in connection with eg other crashes in the region or wider issues such as border disputes in the lake. Those refs have been added now. This goes beyond “media getting it wrong”. Gng does not require the coverage at the time to have been correct. It can be classified to have been at best knowledge at the time. Recent coverage puts this into perspective. As such it should pass gng and event. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. A bit beyond "media getting this wrong" (seems authorities got it wrong?) - this was a major nuclear scare. It had very wide international coverage around the event. Some of the sources in the article - - are written well after the event and some are in-depth - showing this meets WP:NEVENT. Icewhiz (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is an easy keep. Coverage in major news sources like ARD for an extended period of time. FOARP (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Extensive and widespread overage. It does not matter if the notability was because of an unfounded fear of a possible nuclear incident. Meters (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Easy WP:GNG pass, even if the article itself needs a copy edit. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * '"Keep''' A notable accident. Sincerely,    Masum Reza ☎  08:43, 27 April 2019 (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.