Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Berlin helicopter crash (2nd nomination)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

2013 Berlin helicopter crash
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This can be summed up as "One police officer died in an accident." Now, half a year later, it is clear that WP:EVENT (the relevant notability guideline) is not met: There was widespread media coverage, but only during a short news cycle. It therefore also runs against the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Evidently, there has not been any lasting significance. True, there was a short [Berlin town hall] parlimentary debate (which, by the way, was more about the question whether large-scale anti-hooliganism excercises should be carried out at all rather than with the accident itself) and the BFU invesigates into the accident, but this is pretty routine: Whenever a member of the police dies on duty, it triggers some kind of an investigation. The same is true for air accidents, because any crash results in an official response. Have a look at the Interim Report for example, which does not only cover this helicopter crash, but also a number of further, utterly insignificant accidents. Therefore, any measures taken in the aftermath of this accident can be described as pretty routine, and therefore add nothing to its (alleged) notability.--FoxyOrange (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC) FoxyOrange (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep (as article's author). The notability has already been discussed in the previous AFD where no consensus was found. Unless significantly new arguments for a deletion are presented, this article should be kept. De728631 (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The crash happened on 21 March, the article was created on 22 March, and an AfD was initiated within an hour. Indeed, it was closed as "no consensus" one week later, on 30 March. I waited half a year before filing this second AfD, because now we can see clearer if WP:EVENT is passed. The (new) deletion argument is that this guideline is not met, because there has not been any continued coverage.--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. FoxyOrange
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. FoxyOrange
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. FoxyOrange
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. FoxyOrange
 * It was still in the news a few days ago, so the coverage does continue: . De728631 (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - It is clear that this doesn't meet the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTNEWS, which, as a policy, all articles must meet to be retained. There has been no longer term repercussions of any type, no changes in procedures, no airworthiness directives, no equipment changes. It seems to be just one unfortunate accident that left one officer dead.- Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep People died in this accident no matter if it was an aircraft or helicopter is in accorance with WP:AIRCRASH.- Martinillo (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - The fact that a person died in this accident does not make it notable by any Wikipedia criteria. Hundreds of people die in car accidents everyday and no one would argue that those are notable accidents and that each should have its own article. The person who died was the pilot of the Eurocopter EC 155, a light aircraft, and so it doesn't make the inclusion criteria of WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, the fact is that this does not meet the criteria for


 * Keep it's a mid-air collision between two aircraft, therefore, an unusual event. Most times, aircraft crash into terrain or birds. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually from the available information it seems to have been a simple dynamic roll-over where parts from the accident aircraft hit another aircraft on the ground and therefore not that notable. - Ahunt (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as there is a lack of WP:PERSISTENCE beyond routine follow-ups. Does not meet the consensus for inclusion that is outlined in WP:AIRCRASH as an independent article. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Simply doesn't fit under WP:AIRCRASH. WP:NOTNEWS and all of that.  That it's mentioned in passing later is interesting, but not enough. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable as perWP:NOTNEWS.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. In no other context is fatality a notability criteria. WP:AIRCRASH is "advice" and poor advice at that. Stalwart 111  12:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS per above. The article lead is perhaps misleading some into believing this was more sensational than it actually was; there was no mid-air collision, just a landing accident. Tarc (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There being one fatality does not make the accident encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Similar light aircraft accidents in the UK have been deleted even though they received substantial national coverage at the time. WP:NOTNEWS.--Charles (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete—Piling on at this point, but WP:AIRCRASH is the relevant guideline and it sates "Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-notable." This crash doesn't meet either of the two exceptions offered by this guideline, and doesn't have enough lasting coverage to make it notable under the GNG.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 16:10, 15 October 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.