Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of aircraft accidents at Eglin Air Force Base


 * 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. No longer speedy, but deleted due to copyvio concerns raised within the discussion, and "too large" is not a compelling reason to override those concerns. Star  Mississippi  01:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

List of aircraft accidents at Eglin Air Force Base

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

List almost entirely consisting of not notable aviation accidents or incidents. Wikipedia is not a memorial too. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC) *Delete as not encyclopedic, per WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROTM. Accidents, apparently (as this list shows), happen all the time. Without a good secondary source to give some useful content about this, this is an original compilation (hence, basically OR) of routine events in an almost indiscriminate fashion (exhaustive listings of non-notables should be limited to much smaller sets than this - see WP:CSC). Without such a secondary source, this also fails WP:NLIST, since "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables." (on top of the NOT issues already identified). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any policy based reason why this shouldn't be retained, it seems adequately referenced and is a valid (though over-detailed) list. Mztourist (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Consensus is most military aviation accidents and incident, because they are much more frequent than those of the commercial variety, aren't notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that most individual military aviation accidents and incidents aren't sufficiently notable to have their own pages. Where there are numerous military accidents at or around one base you either put them on the base page, or, as here, put them on a separate page. Mztourist (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That still is not a good reason to keep a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of routine and overall mostly insignificant accidents. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator has not suggested a merge target for any of the content here, which appears to largely be verfiable. Aviation incidents are generally noted somewhere on Wikipedia whether it is on the relevant aircraft article or the airport article. The nominator has also suggested at least some of the incidents are notable with the statement "consisting of not notable aviation accidents or incidents". Coverage of these notable incidents certainly shouldn't be removed from Wikipedia and should instead be split off into separate articles. NemesisAT (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NLIST. Nobody outside the military bureaucracy keeps such a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - valid split from article on the air base. Too large to merge back. Mjroots (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or Very Selective Merge Well-referenced trivia is still trivia at the end of the day, and if we can delete pilot articles because their only claim to notability is crashing, why should we retain an article about those crashes? As to the notability of certain crashes claim, why not add any non-duplicated information into the relevant article about the pilot or the aircraft? Intothatdarkness 13:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No opinion on the notability but if kept this list needs a lot of review. The creator was indefinitely blocked for copyvios and has a CCI open. --Rschen7754 19:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete That information is verifiable is not sufficient in and of itself to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia as a standalone article. NLIST asks that there are multiple reliable secondary sources covering the list topic as a set. I have not seen any evidence any such sources exist about aircraft accidents at Eglin Air Force Base (and any long-standing air force base will have had many accidents just by virtue of being active for a long time). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Large amount of detail that is too large to merge back to article about Eglin AFB without a split in a few months. Gusfriend (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep When valid information won't fit in the main article, you make a split off article for it.  D r e a m Focus  03:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NLIST and WP:CSC. Jclemens (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What sources convince you this meets NLIST? Because I'd like to see them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What part of "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." indicates that sourcing is required to establish that criterion? Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * None of those purposes are met here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you know the meaning of the word informational, but are misapplying it in order to reach that conclusion. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You can assume whatever you want. The fact of the matter is that we can find sources for just about any list like this. I can find sources to make a list of accidents on the street I live on. That doesn't make such a list notable. "Recognized informational purpose" is too vague to have any meaning, that argument could be made about literally anything. The definition of informational is "relating to or characterized by facts about something; providing information." That descriptor could be applied to every single article on this website, including many that have been deleted. There has been no refutation of the arguments I made in my !vote, so it will remain as is. It is a dark day if Wikipedians are deciding that notability no longer matters. Though I recognize at least you have cited policies in your keep !vote, something the other !votes to keep have neglected. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Trainsandotherthings. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: the above is still a very valid concern, but has been superseeded by something more obvious below.
 * Keep Per NemesisAT SuperSkaterDude45 16:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nemesis hasn't presented a valid keep rationale. Beyond the irrelevance of the lack of a merge target (maybe because this shouldn't be merged to a single article); their argument that the few notable incidents "should instead be split off into separate articles" in fact seems a rather good argument why this list shouldn't be kept as is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Documented, so notable enough. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is about as total a misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines as can be had. WP:NOT (in particular WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDATABASE) and WP:N are stricter standards than WP:V. I could also verifiably document "Car accidents in [insert town here]" for quite a few towns. That would not make it a valid list, because list of routine and unsignificant events (and the vast majority of the entries on the list, even those with tragic consequences, whether you like it or not, are exactly such incidents, mostly covered in local news in the days after the event) do not belong in an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT (in particular WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDATABASE) and WP:N are stricter standards than WP:V. This just isn't true. Core content policies and the box at the side of that page state that WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are our core content policites whereas WP:NOT is listed under other content policies. WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. NemesisAT (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:5P1 is the very first pillar (and WP:NOT is also policy). And yes, those, along with WP:N, are stricter standards than WP:V, and WP:V itself says that "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". Something can meet WP:V but still very much fail standards for inclusion, as is obviously the case here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * On top of that, when you have things which are so obviously copyvios that you don't even need to have access to the original source to compare, that speaks a lot about the encyclopedic value (or lack thereof) of an article which is just an indiscriminate compilation of routine newspaper reports... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY DELETE per WP:G12. Looking at the page history reveals that there are copyvios (content which is obviously copied as is from press articles) right from the very first version. Creator was blocked for other copyright issues, and sadly this article does not seem to have escaped that. Given that every single version contains infringing material, this fits the definition of G12, and beyond the time and effort which would be required to fix it, on top of the existing issues, it is simply impractical. If this kind of list should exist in the future, WP:TNT would be the only reasonable approach anyways. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Copyvio is a major problem with the article. There is potential BLP issues with some entries (See November 5, 1999), many of the entries are sourced to a personal website joebaugher.com that would fail WP:RS and there is the use of other unreliable sources in the article too. Not to mention accidents that didn't even happen at Eglin (Would you believe Utah and Nevada? How about Antigua???? See May 28, 1991 if you don't believe me.  The title of the article is 'at Eglin'.) and the consensus is the WP Aviation isn't to name to the deceased (unless  WP notable) and accidents must take place at the airport, on approach or just after takeoff. This article needs WP:TNT even if were kept. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I second the above motion to speedy delete As I point out in this talk page post, there has been a copyvio in this article since its creation....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete The incident of 5 Nov 1999 has been copied and rearranged from the Aerospace.org website, while the entry for 18 June 1996 is copied almost verbatim from the Joebaugher.com website. Presumably there are many other such violations. Much of the sourcing itself is dubious, and the topic doesn't appear to meet NLIST as a notable grouping. Avilich (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've listed this at WP:CP. The copyright with list items is often dicey, since non-creative compilations [and a list of aircraft accidents at a given airport is unlikely to be creative] aren't copyrightable but verbatim copying from other websites is infringing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No question its a copyvio Let's go to the very first edition of the article entry 13 January 1953 which in quotes says= An Eglin (AFB) F-86 Saber [sic] jet crash landed on Range 51 here today left pilot Capt. Robert G. Loomis alive but injured. The airman is in the Eglin hospital with a back injury and undetermined internal injuries. That is a word for word copy from a news source and it has been in every edition of the article. The article creator has been indefinitely banned for this type of violations....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a Contributor copyright investigations/20200212 article, WP:PDEL applies. But that's a seven day process. MER-C 16:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed the speed, please don't put it back. Let the AFD play out. Jeepday (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No question its a copyvio Let's go to the very first edition of the article entry 13 January 1953 which in quotes says= An Eglin (AFB) F-86 Saber [sic] jet crash landed on Range 51 here today left pilot Capt. Robert G. Loomis alive but injured. The airman is in the Eglin hospital with a back injury and undetermined internal injuries. That is a word for word copy from a news source And you really think a article corrupt from day one is not fit for speedy deletion. If so, you shouldn't be an administrator. Read G12....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WilliamJE hit the nail on the head here. I don't care where you fall in the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum, copyvio must never be kept. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should take this to ANI. Not 1 but 3 administrators have shirked their responsibilities. If they refuse to deal with a clear G12, they shouldn't be administrators. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've again removed the G12 tag, please don't re-add it, it isn't needed for a few different reasons. For one, the article has already been blanked and listed at Copyright problems/2022 March 11. If an article is listed at copyright problems for over 7 days, it can be deleted. This is usually done in cases where the copyvio has existed in the article since the first revision, or if the article was created and primarily edited by a user with a CCI currently open on them. In this case, both are true, as the article has copied from at least some of its sources since the first revision as you have stated above, and the article's creator has a massive CCI under Contributor copyright investigations/20200212. Given the size and complexity of this article, along with it currently being the subject of an AfD, blanking it for further investigation instead of deleting it on the spot under G12 is preferable. In fact, it is advised by the G12 template itself; This criterion applies only in unequivocal cases, where there is no free-content material on the page worth saving and no later edits requiring attribution – for more complicated situations, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations." This isn't exactly a clear G12 like you say it is- no URL is provided, instead this afd is cited, and it's not explicitly shown here that the entire article, or the majority of it, has been a copyvio from the first revision. I have deleted 100s of articles under G12 over the years, and have also declined a fair share of them as well. I have spent 1000s and 1000s of hours keeping Wikipedia free of copyright issues. I appreciate you caring about copyright issues, but I do not think it is fair for you to threaten to take those admins to Ani for reasonably declining the G12. The copyright violations will be dealt with, the article just doesn't need to be deleted right now. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌵CCI guide 01:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as an obvious copyvio.--Darwinek (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per CSD:G12 Stifle (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2022 (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.