Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Air Service Berlin Douglas C-47 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) Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

2010 Air Service Berlin Douglas C-47 crash

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable incident. Doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH since the plane wasn't written off. Even if it was, the most this merits is a mention in the airport article. WP:NOTNEWS William 23:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  -William 23:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  -William 23:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -William 23:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: although the aircraft was not written off, the article suggests that had the aircraft not been of such historical significance it would likely not have been repaired. The age and historical significance of the aircraft involve make this a notable event.  Besides, readers are reminded that WP:AIRCRASH is a piece of advice, not a formal policy or guideline.  --RFBailey (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per the rationale I gave at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 1 when contesting the PROD. This is not a General Aviation aircraft. Sightseeing flights are a commercial operation, and the aircraft was a constructive total loss. We are still waiting for the BFU to release their final report into the accident. Mjroots (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm neutral on whether or not the crash article should be kept, but Air Service Berlin should be written up as an article, not redirecting to the crash... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've G6'd the redirect per WP:REDLINK. Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: WP:AIRCRASH is not a guideline, just a controversial opinion that doesn't reflect a consensus; and simply referring to WP:NOTNEWS is no argument for deletion. There has been a lot of follow-up press coverage even a long time after the event, which makes it clearly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angbor (talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: This seems to me a notable incident considering the historical significance of the aircraft and location. I feel the encyclopedia is better for having it included. Rex Racer-X (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2012 (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.