Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Afghanistan CV-22 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 delete.  Sandstein  21:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

2010 Afghanistan CV-22 Crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Military accidents are generally non-notable regardless of how many are killed. Notability can be conferred if there are civilian casualties, extensive infrastructure damage, changes to legislation or operational doctrine, etc. etc., or anything that could be construed as notable in it's own right, such as notable passengers WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and as a guide: WP:AIRCRASH (If there are any verifiable consequences this article might well qualify for resurrection, but as it stands it does not) Petebutt (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 17:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 17:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 17:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Ftxs (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 17:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 17:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete military aircraft accidents are fairly common and a rarely noteworthy for a stand-alone article per OP, entry in Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey is sufficient. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable for a separate article; unfortunately, a fairly common occurrence for all types of aircraft. Agree with MilborneOne as to where it should be mentioned. Kierzek (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per AIRCRASH. Not independtly notable. Is notable as part of V-22 woes list, where this is already described at length.Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Worthy in mention in the V-22's article as part of the long and troubled development of the type, but as a standalone, as the saying goes "s[tuff] happens". Military aircraft sometimes crash, and when they crash, they usually kill people. It's rare for one to show WP:PERSISTENCE and there's no especial long-term effect of this one outside of "...and that's why the Osprey is a deathtrap" clickbaiting. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Worthy of mention in the Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey article. While military crashes are still relatively common, they are much less so in the 21st century, and most do not rack up crashes like the V-22.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Tragic but not notable military accident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This isn't just another aircraft accident. It's the first combat loss of a V-22. It received significant news coverage. And the investigation and its findings were the subject of much discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftxs (talk • contribs) 04:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The first loss of an aircraft type isn't inherently notable. Of course there was a burst of news coverage; it was an Osprey, and ambulance chasing sells. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey article can cover this incident. While we should definitely give the loss of V-22s extra attention given the amount of coverage and debate which always results, this doesn't need to be through stand-alone articles. Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is so true, at least we can keep these subjects somewhere. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2018 (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.