Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 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  Speedy Keep perfectly notable and newsworthy event, possible bad-faith nomination, snow (non-admin closure). RockManQ (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash

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

WP:NOT. Idiots fuck off, everybody else agree that this has no place here. Everyme 22:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete for lack of notability, but Everyme, please refrain from personal attacks. Superm401 - Talk 22:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC x 3) *Keep. Certainly one of the more colorful nominations I've seen. Fat Man has it right; the newsworthiness of the event is not disputed by the nom, rather whether it is encyclopedic in nature. The event is notable, and given the nexus with a number of notable people and groups, it wouldn't fit comfortably into any one of their articles. Perhaps we inmates are running the asylum, eh? Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  23:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is one of the more noteworthy aviation incidents in 2008. I read the (somewhat murkily written) policy you cited, and it doesn't preclude notable accidents like this. If we tried to create an article about a not-otherwise-notable person who died in this crash, that would certainly fall under WP:NOT, but an article about the crash itself seems fine.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Nominator does not make a reasonable reason to delete and resorts to personal attacks. About the article itself, this is a notable aviation incident per User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's argument. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 22:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. if for nothing else because the nom is hopelessly rude and anti-consensus and we should not seriously consider such mean-spirited efforts. But I mean, there are sources, there's a claim to importance... let's wait a week or two for events to become more well established and the importance of this event to become clearer. Note that we have articles one of the two most notable(as far as I know) plane-crashes-involving-American-musicians: The Day the Music Died, but not the other (see Lynard_Skynard). Probably merge to relevant articles eventually, but nominating articles like this on the day they occur is not going to generate a very useful consensus in ambiguous cases. --Rividian (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - per Doc Strange, The Back, and Rividian. - BillCJ (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above. This is a newsworthy event. A Google News search returns over 500 articles about this crash. There are sources from The New York Times, St. Louis Today, etc. Furthermore, the nom's rude behavior is appalling. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Rividian and everyone else that the nominator has not put in enough effort as to explain why this article needs to be deleted. If anything, I feel his consideration is nothing more than a personal issue. This is a current event and a possible important aviation disaster and I do not see why it shouldn't be kept seeing as other small air disasters have their own articles. Furik (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Given that this article touches upon several existing articles in a significant manner, it serves, if nothing else, as a means to provide consistency of coverage of this event between the articles this even affects.  Both survivors are notable in their own right, and it has had a significant impact on the operations at Columbia Metropolitan Airport, closing it down for at least most of today.  Absent those impacts, it would have been worth at most a section in the Learjet 60 article.  That's at least four separate existing articles I know of that it touches upon enough to warrant a mention, three significantly, and enables a short summary section in each of those that emphasizes the details relevant thereto, while providing ready access to greater details for those interested.  By comparison, the Lynard Skynard crash has a obvious central article for gathering info about the crash into.  (Disclaimer, I started this article.) Carolina wren (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close A snowball notwithstanding, I think that the discussion can and should be closed. There's no harm if it's revisited in a few months.  Any complaints about this being an sudden and emotional reaction to breaking news are offset by a nomination that appears to be an equally sudden and emotional reaction.  If someone wants to raise the issue of recentism-- and can do that without saying, in advance, that anyone who disagrees is an idiot who should, uh, go elsewhere -- that would be the way to do it in the future.  Mandsford (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Never mind the news coverage, the NTSb has dispatched a go-team to the site, which is unusual for general aviation crashes. It's entirely possible the accident will end up being unremarkable as an accident and may be reliant on the persons involved to be notable. But right now it has every right to be considered notable simply on the accident basis alone. To clarify the 'go-team' statement. The NTSb has dispatched a team of 11 persons, including a senior investigator and one of the five board members. For most GA accidents, they send precisely no-one. THEY obviously think this one is more important than the norm, hence notable.MadScot (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Accidents of this magnitude happen all the time. Fans of Travis Barker may see this as a major news event, others will not. A mention in his own article is enough - WP is not a tabloid. Almost Anonymous (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but it's not just an incident involving Travis Barker. It's a notable event which has several Google News hits (and another well known musician was also injured in the crash), so it's not just Blink-182 fancruft Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 23:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but most GA accidents generally don't disrupt airline service at an airport for a full day (and possibly more if they can't get the debris cleaned up in time to open in the morning. As I noted before, the interaction with several different existing articles is a major reason to keep it. Carolina wren (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as a bad faith nomination. Tavix (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep First of all, shame on the nominator for his language. I usually would vote on these stories as delete because of only local notability, but there were six people involved in this crash, and for now thank God this wasn't a second The Day the Music Died. It is notable not only for the fame of the people involved, but for the NTSB response to the event.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is a developing story and definitely as notable as the 2008 Chatsworth train collision. DiverseMentality  (Discuss it)  00:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep also propose closing per WP:SNOW -Marcusmax (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep definitely notable --Banime (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have my reasons, but that nom doesn't deserve to hear them. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep incident is notable and has verifiable and reliable sources. Bidgee (talk) 01:43, 21 September 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.