Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawker hurricane bd707


 * 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.  Sandstein (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hawker hurricane bd707

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a memorial, and while tragic the article arguably supplies no information on the particular notability of the event. SGGH speak! 07:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although the actual disaster might be notable, the actual plane that was involved isn't. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 08:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A quick Google search suggests that the preservation and restoration of this airplane made it notable before the fatal crash. I added some references from BBC News about the crash.               The article could be moved so that the title refers to the crash rather than the aircraft, but in light of the aircraft's pre-crash notability, I would not favour a move. --Eastmain (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The restoration and crash of this now rare aircraft is notable by wikipedia standards, as can be seen by the extensive press coverage. Nick mallory (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Question what lasting coverage has this event, pilot, or aircraft received? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per references added by Eastmain an that it had undergone preservation and restoration before the crash. I've never seen anyone attempt to use WP:MEMORIAL to an inanimate object. --Oakshade (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Such information would ideally need to be placed in the prose not the title of the external link though. But you make a sound point SGGH speak! 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A NN preserved aircraft that suffered a NN crash. If there is any more substantial information on the aircraft, it should be added (with full citations) during the currncy of this AFD.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT, though a brief mention in the 'Survivors' section of the Hawker Hurricane may be warranted. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Peterkingiron. Wikipedia is not a memorial nor a news site. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Nick Dowling. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Nick Dowling. Doesn't appear notable, though if proper sources are provide that show notability, article could be kept/recreated without prejudice, but with supervision from WP:AVIATION's relevant projects/TFs. - BillCJ (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Nick Dowling. MilborneOne (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable enough for own article. Move text and a suitable ref to Hawker_Hurricane. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Small plane crash which received two days of news coverage.  (jarbarf) (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing notable about the aircraft or the event has been sourced. All such incidents gain media coverage at the time but the test is whether it has any longevity and there seems none. TerriersFan (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Since we have a flurry of delete votes, I have taken a closer look at this. I note that the article was nominated for deletion within 6 minutes of its creation.  Since the original author was driven off by this disgraceful WP:BITE, I have spent a few minutes researching the matter and improving the article.  I have cleaned up the references and have added a citation which demonstrates the aircraft's notability for another incident besides its demise.  Colonel Warden (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Since when have new editors been exempt from WP:N? I don't see anything wrong with nominating new articles on unviable topics for deletion as soon as they're created - especially as the deletion process takes at least a week. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The aircraft and its doings are demonstrably notable since they have been noticed by multiple, major reliable sources such as the BBC. This should have been obvious from the outset and so it seems clear that the nominator failed to search for sources.  The article and original editor were both quite new.  More appropriate action would have been to advise or assist the author or to tag the article as needing sources.  Taking it straight to AFD was prima facie unwelcoming.  This is quite contrary to our founder's Statement of Principles, in particular that Newcomers are always to be welcomed.  The new editor User: CricketSussexccc has not contributed since this initial rebuff.  Wikipedia is not a multiplayer game and we do not score points for acting like a player killer.  Colonel Warden (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2008 (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.