Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Air Force Crash/Ejection History


 * 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. v/r - TP 02:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Air Force Crash/Ejection History

 * – ( View AfD View log )

List of non-notable aviation incidents. — CharlieEchoTango  — 01:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- Entries in lists are not required to be individually notable, the question is whether the topic is suitably notable, which I would claim this is. This is obviously not better served as a category, leaving list as the best option. As to "non-notable aviation incidents", many of these include loss of life, and, while not directly stated, descriptions infer loss of airframe; while significant coverage of these entries separately may not meet notability standards, as a list, it appears adequately sourced, although, like most articles, it might benefit from attention. Dru of Id (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're obviously entitled to your opinion, I will just point out that it would be somewhat odd not to list non-notable incidents in articles on aircraft, airports or airlines/air forces, but then create a stand-alone list of incidents which are not necessarily fatal or hull-losses. I'm also unsure if the listed incidents have been mentioned as a group by a variety of reliable sources, per WP:LISTN (no consensus on the 'requirement' though, so not a guideline per se). Cheers, — CharlieEchoTango  — 02:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, per WP:NNC, it's entirely plausible to have lists of content which does not individually rise to the level of notability. It allows us to cover information in one spot, rather than in a ton of tiny little articles which cannot provide context without being quite repetitive. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jclemens. This would be true if the topic were of overall notability, but WP:NNC does not address the issue of the notability of a topic, only the inclusion of content in articles. Topic notability != Content notability. Would it be plausible to have a list of types of fruits sold in Wal-Mart Montreal North? This is essentially what NCC says when taken in the context of lists (such as in this case), but you will agree with me the topic is utterly not notable and has no encyclopedic value.
 * The bottom line is that lists are not exempted from the notability requirements (with the exception of lists of notable topics and lists of lists). In the present case it needs to be demonstrated that the topic of 'fighter-jets crashes and ejections in the RCAF since 1972' is notable, and WP:NNC is irrelevant to that. That being said, I think there is a case to be made whether an all-inclusive list of RCAF incidents since its inception in 1924 is a notable topic. Certainly the current one isn't. Best regards, — CharlieEchoTango  — 03:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable as a collection of events, any notable accidents are already listed at Lists of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft. Nothing particularly peculiar about the use of ejection seats in Canadian use, military aircraft have ejection seats and sometimes they are used. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this directory of ejections is excellent work on the part of the author, but should be on a private website, not Wikipedia, as it is a collection of non-notable events; even with loss of life and loss of airframe, most likely did not lead to significant changes in procedure or regulation. In addition, the article could easily be seen as a memorial wall, which is not what Wikipedia is for. - The Bushranger One ping only
 * In what specific way do you believe WP:INDISCRIMINATE is met by this list? Jclemens (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that this is unencyclopedic information that does not fall within the remit of Wikipedia, i.e. that, being a discriminate collection of information, this article falls outside that discrimination. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep arguments for deletion are unconvincing, and rely on specific interpretations of derived guidelines that do not mesh well with their purposes. AIRCRASH is for individual incidents, and NOTMEMORIAL does not prevent listing people who were killed when the topic covers such deaths.  It's unhelpful to say "well, that's great research, but it doesn't belong here" when V, the GNG, and RS are all apparently met. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I moved the article to a more descriptive and inclusive title. However if it is to be kept, the article should be expanded so that it doesn't only cover incidents since 1972 (what about those prior to the unification) and only fighters/trainers (helicopter crash-landing re Afghanistan 2010, etc). What is the encyclopedic value of a list of fighter jet ejections and engine failures? — CharlieEchoTango  — 23:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a better title - but moving articles at AfD causes admin headaches. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Combatcam152 did a good job with this table. I gave thought to suggesting that the table be kept, collapsed and placed under a sub-section "Accidents and incidents" in the Royal Canadian Air Force article. But I think its better to delete it. The sourcing (http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/) is too weak. I have visited this site and taken what is written at face value. But the standards for reliable sources, WP:RS, require something better than this website for determining what factual information to include in Wikipedia. LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - While the subject of this article does tread the trivia line very closely, the key issue for me is the lack of reliable references. I have removed two personal self-published websites from the article which are clearly not acceptable references, but the use of http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/ is troublesome. This is clearly a one person, self-published "hobbiest" website. These sorts of sites have been debated before and found lacking as reliable sources due to the lack of editorial oversight and independent fact-checking. So while whether this list fails WP:TRIVIA or WP:INDISCRIMINATE can be debated, it clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:N right now as it lacks acceptable references to establish notability. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2011 (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.