Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brisbane Light Plane 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.  Daniel Bryant  02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Brisbane Light Plane Crash

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Lacks notability. – Zntrip 01:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic is the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable, independent published works. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it non-trivial? Small airplanes crash every week. Why is this one special? – Zntrip 01:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Who says it has to be special? Coverage is coverage. And the coverage is non-trivial because both sources are dedicated solely to covering the crash. I generally do not like to see these kinds of articles (sourced with multiple sources, relatively well-written) nominated for deletion solely on grounds of notability. A proposed merge is much more defensible in this case, I think. However, a merge is an editorial decision that is better discussed on the article's talk page (as there are multiple possible merge targets) and not at AfD. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is really nothing unusual or noteworthy about this crash which establishes notability. While there isn't yet an established formal guideline for aviation accident inclusion, the generally accepted criteria in the Aviation Wikiproject is that for an accident to be included, there has to be a particular aspect of it which makes it encyclopedic. As the other person already said, there are mulitple fatal general aviation accidents every week, often every day world-wide. What makes this one special? The text does not identify anything of note in this incident...the circumstances were not unusual, there was no significant impact on the industry (as in, changes to policies or procedures, etc). It really is up to the article's creator to establish why - beyond the fact that several press outlets reported on its happening - this article is notable. Akradecki 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Notice: Because this discussion directly impacts two wikiprojects (Aviation and Disaster Management), I'm noting this AfD there so that project members can have a chance to comment. Akradecki 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't you agree that a selective merger to List of disasters in Australia by death toll is a better option than deleting? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 02:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you really understand what you saying. You don't merge an article into a list. Yes, you might list the incident on List of disasters in Australia by death toll, if it meets that list's inclusion criteria, but you wouldn't then convert this article to a rediret to that list. As tragic as a crash like this is to the people involved, on an encyclopedic level, there just is no reason to have an article on this incident.Akradecki 02:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don’t think 5 fatalities warrant inclusion on the list. Also, I don’t think the incident can appropriately be called a disaster. – Zntrip 02:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The section of the list titled "Significant incidents resulting in fewer than 10 deaths" includes numerous plane crashes. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 02:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But you still haven't said why this is even a "significant" event. Sad, yes, but what makes this crash significant? Akradecki 03:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Who cares what makes it significant? Do we only include articles on only the top 10 most significant countries? It was the subject of multiple sources ... ergo, people outside of Wikipedia considered it worthy of note and therefore it passes our notability criterion. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 14:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I have a strong sense of deja vu, in having said before that a plane doesn't crash "in a dam." It might crash INTO a dam, but in this case it seems to have crashed into a LAKE. In any event, a small plane crash, unless it means The Day the Music Died( the demise of Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and The Big Bopper), is just another sad everyday event like a car wreck. Several editors' views that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newsmagazine is expressed in the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Edison 03:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment So you would be saying that for a crash to be important it has to kill someone notable? What about this crash? It would be just another 'car wreck'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Comment. It would be a shame for a sourced article to go completely. Perhaps there should be a List of fatal plane crashes in Australia. There aren't that many - a handful at most a year as opposed to car crashes which are a daily event. Capitalistroadster 03:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 03:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's the subject of multiple, non trivial sources. I don't see the grounds for deletion.  The idea that because there are a lot of plane crashes, all told, this plane crash shouldn't be included is fatuous.  Do we say only the hundred most important TV shows get an article? Nick mallory 03:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Only subjects of notability have an article. Having sources does not automatically make a subject notable.  Perhaps you can explain to us why this particular subject is notable? – Zntrip 04:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it was a big news story in Australia, where I happen to be. It didn't make the news in the USA, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter.  Plane crashes are not daily occurences here.  Nick mallory 10:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Acutally Zntrip, the presence of multiple reliable sources is in fact how notability is proven per Notability. A topic about which there are such sources is notable. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 14:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Acutally Zntrip, the presence of multiple reliable sources is in fact how notability is proven per Notability. A topic about which there are such sources is notable. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 14:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable to Brisbane as the occurance of plane crashes like this are not common with 5 fatalities. This was a notable event in Brisbane as shown by news articles. Rimmeraj 04:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Primary criterion for inclusion is multiple, non-trivial coverage - this article has demonstrated that. Multiple coverage which is all about this specific crash - it isn't mentioning this crash in passing in talking about aircraft safety, or this model of aircraft, the sources are talking about this crash.Garrie 06:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing of significance in the article. Other articles in the relevant categories (Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Australia & Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2006) are indicative of the notability criteria. → Aktar (talk • contribs) &mdash; 06:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The presence or absence of other articles do not affect the merits of this one. Notability on Wikipedia is not determined relative to other articles ... it is determined by the objective standard of the presence of multiple reliable sources. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 14:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per GarrieIrons. DXRAW 06:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, for whatever reason, this was pretty big news here in Brisbane. There was lots of non-trivial news coverage of it.  Lankiveil 10:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Weak keep this does appear to have got a fair bit of media coverage so probably does warrant an article — maybe plane crashes are rarer in Australia than here. I agree maybe there ought to be a WP:PLANECRASH guideline since they happen so often (although I don't know how you'd work it — a plane crash that killed 11 people could easily get far more coverage in the English-language press than a crash that killed 150) -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing notable about this particular GA crash. Plane crashes are almost always automatically notable if they involve commercial, scheduled flights, but light planes crash somewhere in the world every day. The US FAA doesn't even keep track of all the GA crashes in the US. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's not notable why did various news sources write about it? --W.marsh 20:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * keep per Garrie but rename if nothing else to fix the capitalization. --W.marsh 20:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - while we've yet to develope the aviation accident notability guidelines, we do have naming guidelines. This one should be renamed "2007 Brisbane Cessna 206 crash". Akradecki 21:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you meant "200 6 ". I don't think there is a need for a separate aviation accident notability guideline ... an overproliferation of guidelines for each class of objects or events would probably be counterproductive. But, that's a different discussion altogether. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Black Falcon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs) 00:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep per Black Falcon. Passes our guidelines.  --Oakshade 05:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article needs a bit of a rewrite, but Black Falcon is right, it is covered by multiple non-trivial sources and passes the primary notability criterion. JRG 05:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per sentiments of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS.--cj | talk 12:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment can someone provide me with sources showing how many light plane crashes there are in Australia and what sort of fatality levels they have - as if it is sufficiently low, that may create some notability where there would be none in, say, the US. Note to closing admin: if no-one has provided such sources by the end of the discusion, then my opinion is weak delete as a tragic but trivial crash Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a case where regardless of being the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable, independent published works it still is not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Perhaps there is a case for a new article - List of aviation incidents causing fatalities in Australia or some such that this could be merged to. -- Mattinbgn/talk 22:03, 28 April 2007 (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.