Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Staten Island Air Show Disaster


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Staten Island Air Show Disaster

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a minor event and is not likely to have any long term notability. It fails to meet the criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: As stated in nomination above. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete not really notable or even a disaster. MilborneOne (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete No real notability of any kind. No significant injuries, a minor event which will be forgotten within weeks, with an overblown title.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Some people got showered with leaves, dirt and branches, and a few suffered minor cuts/scrapes/bruises with no serious injuries? That's really not a "disaster" by any stretch. Certainly not notable -- Boing!   said Zebedee  15:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:AIRCRASH and also WP:NOTNEWS, this was a very minor event, similar in magnitude to a minor car accident and does not belong in an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per OP. Jminthorne (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I did wonder if it could be merged with downwash but it is still not very notable, not a 'disaster' and not very well referenced either. The reference link could be used as an external link in the downwash article (none present at the moment). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    19:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It was a linguistic abuse to call this incident a "DISASTER." The Hindenberg suffered a disaster. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not even news, let alone notable: "A military helicopter's powerful propellers blew the branches off trees and blew dust/dirt/sand around" and "flying debris/branches/dirt" caused "minor cuts/scrapes/bruises". I can picture Linda Richman now-- "Disaster?  Honey, you want to know what's a disaster?  All the money I spent on getting my hair styled only to get it blown around and ruined with debris, branches and dirt..."  Mandsford 21:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Edison sums it up with his "linguistic abuse" comment. - is it time to snowball this one ? Codf1977 (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I hate it when Nancy Grace staffers write articles (cue the rimshot!). This isn't a disaster, at best it's a really bad hair day for those on the ground.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 11:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete completely non-notable minor incident. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow delete. Surprised nobody commented that it wasn't even a helicopter that did it... - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 18:49, 9 June 2010 (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.