Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Piper PA 28 plane 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 Piper PA 28 plane crash

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Just another general aviation crash. While tragic, there is no indication that this rises to any level of encyclopedic notability. Yes, there are news sources cited, but these are today's news, not lasting notability-type refs. Fails WP:AIRCRASH.  AK Radecki Speaketh  01:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete news story with no evidence of greater notability. JJL (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to WikiNews if they don't have it already. The WP:AIRCRASH guideline seems acceptable and there's no indication this event will cause any real changes in aviation, so it doesn't belong here. - Mgm|(talk) 10:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. An unfortunate accident, and while I sympathize with the person who created the article, Wikipedia is not a memorial.  Mandsford (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment/Keep? As it has only recently happened references can only really be "today's news". After all it fits the bill of "aviation accidents resulting in loss of life". Unless I'm somehow mistaken? --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the loss of life criteria is for commercial aviation. It's different for GA. Loss of life GA crashes, like loss-of-life auto crashes, are almost a daily occurance (as can be seen by watching the NTSB briefs).  AK Radecki Speaketh  23:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete from WP; by all means add to wikinews if you wish. This is a NN crash of a light aircraft. WE do not have articles on every fatal road crash; and WP does not need them on every single aviation incident. Is it the same person who keeps creating an article on every incident? if so, adminsitrative action against them is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete General aviation fatal crashes are all too common, alas, and there is nothing particularly significant about this one - fatalities limited to occupants, victims not notable, common aircraft type, etc. In addition, the types of sources cited are not generally to be treated as reliable in reporting news about aviation crashes - they simply do not have the specialist technical expertise that will be provided in the official report into the accident when it eventually appears, and which may then justify an article. Until then, this is simply a tranistory news story of no lasting significance.Emeraude (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, press coverage demonstrates notability. "All too common" is not an argument for non-notability; if people choose to pay particular attention to things, then those things are notable, regardless of how ordinary they may seem to individuals. Everyking (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, any fatal accident is going to get press coverage. In fact, if the press paid no attention at all to a small plane crash, that would be extremely unusual. If the four people had died in an automobile accident, I imagine that it would have been reported by the press in Ireland as well.  All accidents are tragic; I think what is saddest of all is that some parents let their 14 year old son travel with his friend's family, and lost their child.  Assuming that you would agree that it would be impractical to have an article any time that there is a fatal accident, the question then comes down to how you would separate out those accidents you would think don't merit a separate article in an encyclopedia.  I don't think anybody here is being callous.   Mandsford (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't think it is in any way reasonable to suggest similarities between air crashes and road crashes. That would be akin to equating a gust of wind with an earthquake. Road crashes are an all to common occurrence, especially in Ireland. Air crashes such as these are a less frequent occurrence, especially in Ireland. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 00:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Another point worth noting is that the story is still in the news. The BBC are an example of a non-Irish news organisation that reported on the funerals which took place today. Numerous news sources cite the development of the story. These include Irish Independent, Evening Echo, Buckingham Today, The Irish Times Rye and Battle Observer, Irish News... etc, etc. Need I go on? There are a wealthy mix of Irish and non-Irish organisations. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 00:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this BBC source a full report is not expected for months, meaning this story will resurface again and again. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 01:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What I find most ironic of all is that this page has roughly the same amount of independent individual sources as this specimen, a case of an article I'm not entirely sure can conceivably exist and yet it continues to do so. Both use such a wide variety of sources but are treated in different ways by the media. This particular article is dealt with more respectfully and hasn't been hounded to death. The other has. Is Wikipedia to become a monster for tabloid fodder whilst consigning the real notable occurrences to the dump? I find a large number of inconsistencies and contradictions between the existence of an article on a real news story and an article on sensationalist hyperbole. Both have a large number of sources, both are mentioned again and again by the media, yet this one is threatened with deletion. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 01:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable to me. Also, per Candlewicke. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that we're split on whether this accident is notable or not notable; the Wikipedia Aviation Project has proposed some rules about crashes, and these could be argued either way; the sticking point may be in defining "the immediate timeframe of the accident".  The text WP:AVIMOS says "General aviation/corporate aviation/private aircraft accidents are generally notable only if: Unusual circumstances are involved; Notable people are involved; They result in downstream changes to the industry or procedures; or News coverage continues beyond the immediate timeframe of the accident."  The accident happened on October 25, about nine days ago, so we may be outside the immediate timeframe by now.  Thoughts, anyone? Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're outside the immediate timeframe and the story is still ongoing then of course it's notable. I don't see what the argument is. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 19:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete news story with no further notability asserted. I believe that we are cetainly in the immediate timeframe with articles of the funerals.  If there are further articles with more information than just that it happened we *might* be pushing into notable coverage.Dimitrii (talk) 20:49, 3 November 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.