Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saujac air 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   speedy delete. Ged UK  13:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Saujac air crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Military crashes usually not notable - operational hazard Petebutt (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Having nominated this as not notable, it seems that it may warrant keeping due to the civilian casualties and the centre-line closure failure of BOTH engines simultaneously. But it needs a LOT of work--Petebutt (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * keep or possibly merge to Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire
 * My understanding of aircrash notability for military crashes is for when they're more than just an "everyday hazard" and when they lead to some operational change. This crash (and AFAIK, it was this specific crash) was the crash that led to severe operational restrictions on the Javelin: the UK's all-weather interceptor was no longer permitted to fly through cloud! Either way, centre-line closure failures belong in the Sapphire article.
 * I don't believe that two simultaneous failures add any particular notability. This class of repeated failures was the result of external climatic conditions, rather than an "engine fault" and so it was entirely likely that both would fail together (one flight from Cyprus needed prior approval and still lost 3/4 engines when it encountered the conditions known to cause it). Also the severity of a single failure like this was known to be an inevitable aircraft destroyer (the airframe might be intact, but all control systems would be lost immediately). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - The accident caused civilian fatalities. This gives the case for notability that it would otherwise not have had. Presumably the accident would have been covered in the local and aviation press, possibly in national press such as The Times so sources should be available to improve the article. Needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:CBAN etc without prejudice to recreation by any editor in good standing. Mjroots (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete and have another user recreate, per WP:DENY and WP:G5: the article was created by a sock of community banned mass sockpuppeteer User:Ryan kirkpatrick. Keeping Ryansock-created articles only encourages him. While this appears to be a notable accident it needs to be recreated as a valid article by somebody who is actually a legitimate editor. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per The Bushranger....William 01:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per The Bushranger. can be re-created later but to keep it only encourages one of the more prolific sockmasters to continue. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 28 January 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.