Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haughey Air AgustaWestland AW139 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   wp:snow keep -- Y not? 12:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Haughey Air AgustaWestland AW139 crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NOT policy, WP is not a newspaper, this crash does not demonstrate any of the criteria set out in WP:NEVENT, no lasting effect, only local geographical scope, single news cycle coverage any claim that it will is pure speculation. This can and should be covered over at wikinews and a single section on Edward Haughey, Baron Ballyedmond's article.  LGA talk  edits   07:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep notable accident by virtue of notable death. Claims that it should be covered by Wikinews are amusing at best.  Even meets the requirements of the highly-lauded WP:AIRCRASH!  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:AIRCRASH as an independently WP:NOTABLE person lost their life. Martin 4 5 1  08:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Firstly, the AW139 is not a "light aircraft" as defined by WP:AIRCRASH, it is a large helicopter in excess of 14,000 lb MTOW. Secondly, a Wikinotable person was killed in the accident. Putting the two together gives enough weight to the case for a stand-alone article. As for "no lasting effect", it is way too soon to tell. There is no reason why Wikinews can't cover the accident if it wishes to. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is WP:CONSENSUS that any accident in which a Wikinotable person was killed is notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to that consensus? Can it be added to the AIRCRASH page? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If there was ever a formal discussion, I'm unaware, but this is "WP:EDITCONSENSUS" as defined through long-term precedent and is in fact already mentioned in AIRCRASH. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * CommentThe idea that an aircraft accident is notable because somebody notable was killed is ridiculous. In many case the accident qua accident is unremarkable, and information can be quite adequately included in the persons biography. This is even the case with Steve Fossett, where there is a huge section on the accident and subsequent search. By analogy, why not articles like 1977 Barnes Mini 1275GT crash for Marc Bolan. Or indeed 1999 Winchelsea missed footing accident? In the case of this accident it looks like it might be notable because the aircraft seems to have had a history of problems, so the reason may be of note. Otherwise, this guideline simply values a notable persons life more than a non-notable one, and reflects the fact that even minor aircraft accidents are more newsworthy (not notable) than for example car crashes.TheLongTone (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Otherwise, this guideline simply values a notable persons life more than a non-notable one, and reflects the fact that even minor aircraft accidents are more newsworthy (not notable) than for example car crashes." correct. That's why it's an encyclopaedia, not a listing of everyone who has ever died in every vehicle accident in history.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Their notability is a reason for them having a biography. Their death is part of that biograpy, and can be included in it unless it is an otherwise notable event.TheLongTone (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's one perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per The Bushranger...William 12:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep for now at least. There is significant national coverage of the event - national broadsheets have given it a significant level of coverage as have national broadcasters. Additional coverage from regional press, both in East Anglia and the North of Ireland. It strikes me that coverage includes "further analysis or discussion" already. This suggests WP:DEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE from WP:EVENT are met.


 * Given the writ issued by the owner against the manufacturer I think there's a reasonable case to argue that a continued media coverage of the even is likely in some form. Yes, at present this is speculation I accept - but not unreasonable speculation. With respect to duration of coverage, WP:PERSISTENCE (again, part of WPEVENT) makes the point that:


 * ...this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable.


 * It's not unreasonable either to consider that there is a chance that WP:LASTING might also be met given the writ (beyond any lasting impacts on Norbrook Group or related business interests). For these reasons I'd argue WP:EVENT is at least reasonably well met by itself. If speculation proves to be unmerited and media coverage doesn't continue then I'd certainly be prepared to look again at whether the event meets the GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * merge to the baron's biography. We're talking a general aviation crash here of someone whose claim to fame outside the field of routine coverage of minor "notables" is apparently going to be "oh yeah, he's the one who was killed when his copter crashed." I also have to say that the "all of class X are notable" supposed consensus rules cannot just be strung together through what is really a kind of inheritance. When it comes down to it, this article is already longer than the baron's own article. Finally, the current name is a ridiculously contrived way of avoiding something along the lines of Baron Ballyedmond's helicopter crash which would give the whole notability and separability game away. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The title of the article is in accordance with the established naming convention for aircrash articles. I've not attempted to "hide" the existance of the article, It is directly linked from WP:ITN/C, which many active Wikipedians use daily. It is also linked from the relevant template, which means that something like 200,000 people would have seen the existence of the article yesterday when they viewed the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article. Lord Ballyedmond is well above the threshold of notability. A British and Irish peer, and the richest man in Northern Ireland at the time of his death. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in a group that has a sometimes-contentious naming convention, but ours at least arises from an official source which is the provider of the names in question. This made-up in-wiki name is certainly not what the papers and such are using (they seem to call it the "Norfolk helicopter crash"). But any rate the issue of separability from the baron isn't being addressed. Maybe something will come of the accusations and investigations, but at present the story is "Baron Ballyedmond was killed when his helicopter crashed." Mangoe (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Martin451 & The Bushranger. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  19:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep A serious accident that has led to the death of a notable person alongside three others. Guyb123321 (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2014 (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.