Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Cheyenne test 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   merge to Boeing 247. Project consensus, as represented in WP:N and its subpages, is that inclusion as a standalone article is dependent on coverage in reliable sources. The "keep" argument by Dream Focus and Tarheel95 does not take this into account and submit that all aircraft crashes are notable. Such arguments are ungrounded in policy (see WP:ITSA) and are therefore discounted for the purpose of assessing consensus.  Sandstein  16:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

United Airlines Cheyenne test crash

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Declined PROD. No comment was made when the prod was declined beyond "adding ref" - but that doesn't address the PROD at all. Prod reasoning: "Completely non-notable accident. Did not occur in revenue service; no lasting impact; no continuing coverage." All of which still apply. In the 1930s, aircraft - including airliners - cracked up regulary during test flying; this is no different than any number of other crashes. While it technically meets the standard of WP:AIRCRASH (the relevant notability essay) for inclusion in the Boeing 247 article, it has a complete failure of WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. The Bushranger One ping only 00:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 00:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 00:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge Though deserves expansion of a line or two. Checkout the accident report, which appears to support deletion/merge (no real lessons learned from this crash, no recommendations). Some WP:COMMONSENSE is required here in interpreting the WP:AIRCRASH essay guidelines here for a non-revenue test flight for an airline. Although I believe any given crash in 1935 carries more weight than a comparable crash today, I do not see how this specific crash is notable enough to have its own article, rather than part of the Boeing 247 article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (add.) Maybe that was phrased poorly, instead I'll rather have said: it's notable, but will NEVER be able to be expanded beyond three lines of encyclopedic text. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. WP:AIRCRASH (a non-policy, non-guideline) needs a crash course in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, the reveant content is already in the Boeing 247 article. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - just because it was a test flight does not necessarily mean that it was not notable. Coverage would probably have been in contemporary newspapers. Merge without prejudice to recreation if/when these sources can be found. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, when I said "common sense" I meant a case-by-case basis. I see that this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#Wings incident doesn't have its own entry (though probably should). Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701 is a gripping story of a joy ride gone wrong. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Drive-by" copy/paste rationale. Article inclusion isn't based upon sourcing within articles themselves. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but it's based on such sources existing - which, for this accident, they do not. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per Associated press coverage, October 31, 1935:
 * An historical event with coverage in reliable sources, way before the Internet existed. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the continuing coverage? This fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER completely; there is zero notability here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the continuing coverage? This fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER completely; there is zero notability here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep All crashes get ample coverage, and are studied in detailed, and learned from. Consensus has always been that.  Thus the reason we have so many of them. Category:Accidents and incidents involving airliners   D r e a m Focus  14:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, all crashes do not get ample coverage. All airliner crashes get coverage...because they crash and kill passengers. This aircraft crashed on a test flight - four company employees, performing the test, were killed, and there is precisely zero continuing coverage. . - The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge - I like how, despite the explanation of why this doesn't really serve as a good stand alone article, we still get the usual "a source exists so this MUST be kept" without putting any more thought into it. Lacks the potential to become a worthwhile standalone article, and, like other articles in the field that could technically be considered "notable" but would make for a poor article, should (and I believe already has?) be covered in another article. .--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 08:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dream Focus' argument. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 13:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with Dream Focus' argument is that it puts the broad statement, that all crashes get substantial coverage, over the actual truth, which is that this one didn't. Are we really going to ignore the actual case we're dealing with in preference to a generalization?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We had a discussion before about which crashes to include, and AIRCRASH was made as a guideline. Still not officially promote to guideline status, but whatever.  People died in the crash.  It surely got coverage, this the type of things people report.  Not all newspapers and magazines have their entire history searchable through Google.  They learned something from it, and thus it had lasting effect.   D r e a m Focus  17:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point and completely misreading WP:AIRCRASH. This article meets WP:AIRCRASH...for inclusion in the Boeing 247 article only, on the basis of 1. fatalities, 2. hull loss. It does not make any claim that anything was learned from it. At all. It was a pilot error accident. And, for stand-alone articles, WP:AIRCRASH states: "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports." A 1935 pilot-error crash on a training flight would not have produced much, if anything, beyond an article in the local newspaper - it was not the "kind of thing people report", aircraft were rather more likely to crash back then, and did so, regulary. There were no known changes in procedures and regulations, and regardless of that, there is precisely zero evidence that this accident meets the WP:GNG or even comes close to it. "It surely got coverage" - while it is true that sources only need to exist for an article to be notable, there is no evidnce that sources exist. "It was a crash therefore there must be sources" is not the same thing as "there are sources". - The Bushranger One ping only 18:02, 14 December 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.