Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 South Australia Cessna Conquest 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.  So Why  10:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 South Australia Cessna Conquest crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tragic but not notable small plane crash. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete non-commercial training flight not really noteworthy for a stand alone article. Light twins do crash regularly hardly any of them worthy of a mention and nothing here stands out. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete completely routine accident, nothing special - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  13:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * KEEP - You have been VERY keen to DELETE this entry, SO QUICKLY, that has a significant mount of interest for Australian readers of WP. What is your hidden reasoning? Do you have a hidden link with Cessna? DISCLOSURE, please! - Peter Ellis - Talk 13:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You have not actually explained why there was a 'delete'. Why not question this on the page? I also do not see any explanation on the Talk page. BIGLY un-helpful! - Peter Ellis - Talk 13:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - once an article has been nominated it usual practice to discuss it here rather than the article talk page. Currently only four people have the article on a watchlist so any discussion here gets a wider audience to comment on the merits of the proposal. Please dont comment on the motives of others and assume good faith, the proposer has been around aircraft accident articles a long time and is able to make such judgements based on experience here on wikipedia, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I second milbornes support of the nominator. The author would be well served by reading the essay at WP:AIRCRASH to help in deciding if it is worthwhile writing a particular accident article!--Petebutt (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS - a non-notable accident, though tragic, undeserving of a place in an encyclopedia!! This is not a repository of everyday snippets!!!--Petebutt (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I will say weak keep- It was an airline crash and had fatalities...other than that I agree with the nominator that, basically at least, it's a non-notable albeit tragic incident. A re-direct to the airline's article maybe?? Antonio Taking Adelaide on Alice's Spring mattress Martin (Antonio Martin...Australian for crazy talk) 06;53, June 1, 2017 (UTC)
 * Rossair is not an airline, and even if it was, that is not sufficient to make the crash notable; nor are the three deaths. YSSYguy (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually isn't Rossair a charter airline as defined in the article? Either way we can do a redirect, which i think considering we are so far (as I write) tied on the vote, would be most convenient for everyone.Antonio Queensland's now Antoniosland Martin (here) 06:56, 4 June, 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - It isn't a commercial flight, but it did generate a lot of news coverage, and it is the deadliest crash in the state for some time. If it is not kept, I would strongly recommend a redirect to another article as it is a plausible search term in my opinion -- Whats new?(talk) 01:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There have been an average of one fatal air crash in South Australia each year for the last ten years. The last time an air crash in SA killed three people was in 2011, when the ABC television news helicopter crashed and killed Paul Lockyer. That crash generated far more coverage than this and - "other stuff exists" (or in this case "other stuff does not exist") arguments notwithstanding - WP does not have an article about that event. It is covered in the article about Lockyer; the subject of this discussion is covered in the article about the company, I think that is an appropriate level of documentation. YSSYguy (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted to continue consensus. No bias on final decision
 * Keep. Most general aviation accidents are found to involve a significant amount of inexperience, poor airmanship and poor judgement. The three occupants in this crash were two Chief Pilots being observed by a third who was a Flying Operations Inspector representing the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. No shortage of experience here, so this accident is highly unusual. There will inevitably be a strong focus on the airworthiness of the aircraft, possibly resulting in an Airworthiness Directive. Alternatively, there is likely to be a significant change in the procedures for conduct of check and training flights, and flights involving oversight by a supernumerary checking pilot. Dolphin  ( t ) 02:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - these days everything generates news coverage; the coverage of this event has already died down. I can easily think of three other crashes non-general-aviation crashes in Australia in similar circumstances (crew training flights): a Tamair Metro (with the crash mentioned in the Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner article), an Air North Brasilia (mentioned in the Airnorth article) and a Royal Australian Air Force Boeing 707 {mentioned in the RAAF Base East Sale article). All three crashes involved airliner-type aircraft, all three crashes generated coverage and all three crashes resulted in changes to 'the way things are done'. As WP is not in the business of crystal-ball-gazing, it is not valid to argue that the article should be kept because the crash might become notable in the future. The crash is mentioned in the Rossair article and if it does become notable in the future the article can easily be recreated. YSSYguy (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The fact that a pilot should particularly know how to fly (which is said for this crash) is not news. Wykx  (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator and Petebutt. WP:NOTNEWS states: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This might be ideal material for our sister, WikiNews, but I can see no reason for its retention as a stand-alone article here. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic   Nightfury  12:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – The Essendon crash in February was borderline notable enough for inclusion, I suppose because paying passengers died, it crashed over a built-up area and was witnessed by many, covered by video footage etc. This accident does not even have those characteristics. If it really turns out that something extraordinary happened that will require rewriting of designs, procedures etc, we can always reinstate the article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. No lasting impact, small number of fatalities. A car crash or boat sinking with the number of deaths would almost certainly not have an article. Emu-warrior (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. tragic but not overly notable Jkd4855 (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2017 (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.