Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Berlin helicopter 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

2013 Berlin helicopter crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. Helicopter crashes are common, it was an exercise. Nobody notable killed. WP:NOTNEWS applies also.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC) ...William 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The event meets GNG because of international coverage and extended national media attention. Even the federal parliament of Germany will now debate this accident in a discussion about the structure of the federal police forces, so there may be a political aftermath. As to your other arguments, how is the fact that this happened during an exercise affecting its relevance? Train stations and ships are also common, and yet we have a plethora of articles about them. De728631 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me also quote from WP:EVENT: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." De728631 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Quite notable. Just because nobody notable died doesn't mean that the event isn't notable. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  22:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - In this case, notability seems clear; while helicopters do tend to fail at beating the air into submission fairly regularly, a collision, of police helicopters, with the political repercussions from it, adds up to this being a notable incident. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This attitude of yours may get you blocked over here. De728631 (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - a non-event according to WP. Also there are no "political repercussions" as user Bushranger stated, or even "parlamentarial debates", as user De728631 (the almost sole contributor) boasted. Quite to the contrary it was made very clear that there won´t be any parlamentarial investigations, e.g. here, on german. Furthermore users "De728631" sole intention for this article in EN:WP seems to be to bolster the german article, which is currently also under deletion discussen ("looky looky - even en:wp has it !!!1!11!") - IMHO a very appalling move. 212.23.103.66 (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of second-guessing my intentions (assume good faith?) you might want to read the source again you quoted. While there won't be an official parliamentary investigation, Bosbach has announced that the interior commission will discuss the accident in a debate with minister Friedrich. This is clearly a political dimension that has been added to the event. And the Berlin state parliament will at least debate the accident on 15 April: "Auch im Abgeordnetenhaus soll das Unglück auf die Tagesordnung der nächsten Sitzung am 15. April, wird wohl im Rahmen des Punktes „Besondere Vorkommnisse“ besprochen, so der SPD-Abgeordnete Thomas Kleineidam." (Also in the House of Delegates, the accident shall be put on the agenda of the next session on 15 April, and will presumably be dealt with along the item of 'special incidents', said SPD MP T. Kleineidam.) De728631 (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all: This smells like hounding. Then, no "second guessing" necessary, since it is plain obvious. See here on the german deletion debate (16:58, 22. Mär. 2013 (CET), "Die englische Wikipedia hat sich dem Thema nun auch angenommen" - "en:wp has it, too!!1!") OnT.: In that very article it is very clearly stated "Eine parlamentarische Untersuchung des Unglücks ist im Bundestag oder im Abgeordnetenhaus bisher nicht geplant." ("No investigation, neither in parliament nor in chamber!"). Nobody cares what Mr. Bosbach says. He is a well-known attention-whore and will speak even to microphone-dummies. That said, deletion is the only way to go. 212.23.103.30 (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do feel a bit hounded. The remark "Die englische Wikipedia hat sich dem Thema nun auch angenommen" was made by Excolis, and not by me as 212.23.103.66 implied. I have neither been pushing the interwiki argument in the German Afd nor have I cooperated with Excolis to "create" more relevance. And whether Bosbach's announcement will come true or not is also not relevant for the moment. It has been reported by reliable sources that a regular panel of the German federal parliament has shown interest in the case. And it has been confirmed today that the Berlin state parliament will in fact investigate the accident: "Helikopterabsturz wird Thema im Berliner Parlament" (Helicopter crash will become an issue in the Berlin Parliament) Berliner Morgenpost, 24 March. The oppositional parties are going to raise the issue in the interior committee of the Berlin parliament. De728631 (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Berlin state parliament" - that gave me a good chuckle. That´s nothing more than a town hall meeting. And your "reliable" source for the Bundestag is - *ta-daa* - aforementioned attention-whore Bosbach. You are deliberatly misleading the people here. Stop this travesty now and delete it. 212.23.103.25 (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The official designation in German is Landesparlament which translates to "state parliament" in English. After all, the city of Berlin is still one of the 16 German states (aka Länder). See also Abgeordnetenhaus of Berlin. You might have been thinking of the Senate of Berlin that resides in the town hall, but the Abgeordnetenhaus is something entirely different. De728631 (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 212, your comments about Bosbach violate WP:BLP, please strike them. And they sound like a case of your not liking the source. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I won´t. Bosbach is the personification of annoyance and incompetence. My words are carefully chosen. And since this person utters smelly hot air only, "not liking the source" is no valid point as there is a lack of "source". 212.23.103.64 (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete.  ... most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value ... whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable ... - here: WP:NEWSEVENT. --Ben Ben (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per nomination. This is not a newspaper. Sad though it is, the death of the pilot is not notable, nor is the accident, unles some fundamental changes to helicopter operations result, which is highly unlikely.--Petebutt (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems likely that changes to German police helicopter operations will result. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Source? 212.23.103.64 (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree with Petebutt and William in saying that this article isn't notable and needs to be deleted. Military incidents are very common and don't need a wikipedia page. You only need to give pages to notable commercial air crashes. Wikipedia isn't all about the military. Springyboy (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This wasn't a military operation but a civil police exercise. De728631 (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Police or military, who cares. This article shouldn't be on wikipedia and needs to be deleted.Springyboy (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain how this accident is any different from a commercial aircraft crash, e.g. 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash? — Preceding unsigned comment added by De728631 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for giving me such a nice example to explain off. 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash deserves to be on Wikipedia due to the damage it caused on the station and objects around it, the reviews that were conducted into the crash investigation and the coverage it received around the world. This was just an ordinary police exercise that went wrong. There is no need to give it the coverage you have given it, due to the limited coverage and limited issues that eventuated from it. I'm in Australia and I can tell you that I heard about the 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash less than an hour after the incident, but it took you almost a week to put this page up. It is now a long forgotten news story that does not need to be remembered anymore. Accidents in police exercises are common. Do you want me to put up all the incidences that have happened in Australia with police? There may be a lot of info related to the crash online, but that still is not enough to prove its notability.Springyboy (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As noted, the premise of the !vote is flawed, as this was not a military accident. And the WP:WHOCARES brushoff of that being pointed out doesn't help. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So, let's recount the facts. Vauxhall: helo hits house, 2 dead, massive material damage, worldwide coverage, article not even prodded; Berlin: 2 helos collide, 1 dead, massive material damage on the tax payers' expense, worldwide coverage, political debates announced, article Afd'ed. De728631 (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. This got a huge amount of press coverage;  Google News returns 5300 results for "helicopter crash berlin"; all of the first 25 are about this incident.  As was pointed out by User:Big Ben, this will be investigated by the Berlin landesparlament.  Survives WP:GNG and appears to survive WP:EVENT.  Marechal Ney (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's still not enough to prove its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springyboy (talk • contribs)
 * It will not be discussed in the "landesparlament". The topic will be the poorly planned police exercise, not the crash in particular. Crash investigations are a task for the german BFU (air crash investigators), and prior to their expertise there won´t be any serious disussions since they´re pointless. But it can last a year or more until they publish their report. So it stays a non-event. 212.23.103.64 (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Worldwide press coverage. Very rarely police helicopters collision. NickSt (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you misread your facts there. There have been many police helicopter crashes. This isn't the first police crash to get a wikipedia page. 2012 Kenya Police helicopter crash deserves a page due to its notability and issues that affected Kenya after the crash. This German crash does not deserve a page, due to its forgotten status, its common causes and not needing to make any changes to the current system. (i.e it fails WP:Aircrash) This article is a long lost incident that does not need to remembered. Why do we need it?Springyboy (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The 1993 Auckland mid-air collision had no lasting effect on the NZ flight regulations either and nobody notable died in the accident. And yet the article was featured in "Did you know". Granted, this page had a full section on the investigation from the beginning but it still strikes me as bit strange that nobody even cared to question the notability of this incident which was probably not even as widely reported back then as in today's globalised world ten years later. De728631 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Is a rare but Effective media event of the accident between two police helicopters in Berlin. --Coffins (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The arguments fall under two basic principals, the keep camp arguments for WP:INDEPTH due to it's international coverage, and the delete camp's arguments under WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE. Ultimately, I think under the arguments of WP:AIRCRASH, both arguments are met but it's difficult to decide whether the in-depth coverage addresses the lasting effects requirements since no changes to German flight safety or police operations were mandated out of the crash. Mkdw talk 22:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:INDEPTH is not a quantity argument, it's about quality of information aka in-depth analysis. World-wide news doesn't count as quality, only as a quantity for sensation, usually sensation for one day. There is no analysis of the accident in the article, because non does exist at present. Accident analysis needs time and only if it turned out that The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes it would fulfill all needed standards for inclusion in WP:AIRCRASH. --Ben Ben (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As we are currently (a deadlock), I suggest we Merge into Aircrashes in 2013 to break the deadlock. That way we still have a record of the crash and the resulting damages. I don't think it even deserves a record on Wikipedia however to please both parties we need to Merge otherwise more debates will come out of it. Springyboy (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merging could be a solution, but not in an article about commercial aircrafts (the article is about the crash of police helis). --Ben Ben (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with merging is that there are apparently only lists of aircraft accidents for either commercial or military operators; see Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents. De728631 (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * List of accidents and incidents involving general aviation. Could that fit?--Ben Ben (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the problem is with that page. It looks like a good place to move our article to.Springyboy (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you might want to change the definition of "general aviation" in the lead paragraph. Currently the list seems to be about private and corporate aircraft, while military aviation is excluded. But there's also no mention of other state agencies like police, so I thought the list wasn't suited for merging. De728631 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2013 (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.