Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Royal Air Force Nimrod R1 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. Noting that a merge was floated as a possibility, and given the weakness of the keeps could be discussed on the article talk page, but the relevant info is already largely duplicated in the proposed target. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 06:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

1995 Royal Air Force Nimrod R1 crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:GNG military crashes are an operational hazard and only notable for other reasons than the crash itself. in this case there is nothing of note outside the crash Petebutt (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While the circumstances of the crash itself may be routine, it is noteworthy for the type of aircraft, the fact that it successfully ditched with no fatalities, and that the government launched a special project solely to replace it Hammersfan (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No!! But we shall see what a discussion brings.--Petebutt (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Could this article be merged with Hawker Siddeley Nimrod R1?Vorbee (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete not noteworthy for a stand-alone article, non-fatal military aircraft accident are not particularly rare (or unusual) and accident is already mentioned as much as needed in the Nimrod R1 article which was created a few days ago. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep' - the argument re military aircraft accidents generally being non-notable is intended to keep down the numbers of articles involving training and fighter aircraft. I remember this accident and it received lots of coverage at the time. The Nimrod should be considered as an airliner (it was developed from one) and as such should not be lumped in with the smaller military aircraft. WP:GNG is met, and the article is being developed. Mjroots (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep OMG-major-shitstorm owing to the loss of this one crucial aircraft out of a tiny (3) and important fleet. This led to the fastest RAF gaffer-tape procurement since Black Buck. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Incidents leading to the destruction of rare, high priority and very expensive aircraft such as this are of much greater notability than more 'routine' military crashes. The article attests that this crash lead to an immediate and very expensive procurement program. It would have also significantly compromised the RAF's signals intelligence capacity, which other sources probably discuss. As such, I think it gets across the line for inclusion as a stand-alone article. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Is a big aircraft. Is specific type (though - the incident is mentioned on the type's page - the question here is whether this has "life" outside of the type). I was vacillating between weak D/K - looking at the sources it is a K for me. On a technical note, this is not a crash but a ditching - if this stays it should be renamed.Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2017 (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.