Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 9963


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 9963

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non notable incident. Cargo plane crashes are very common....William 17:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable accident (WP:GNG, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:AIRCRASH) and an article created by a block-evading sockpuppet of a community banned user. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - A non-notable accident in which no one was killed and had no long lasting effects. Rorshacma (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable, as simple as that, but consider inclusion in a list, such as United AirlinesPetebutt (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, but perhaps it should suffer the same fate as Articles_for_deletion/American_Airlines_Flight_1340.Osarius     Talk 08:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment There are a couple of important differences between this AFD and 1340 one. First- that incident was a cargo plane. Written off cargo plane accidents are far more common than written commercial plane accidents. Second and more important- You created the American Airlines Flight 1340 in good faith, the creator of United Airlines Flight 9963, did not. The creator of the article is one of the many WP:Sockpuppets of banned editor Ryan Kirkpatrick. While Ryan has been banned from WP for about two years, he has been constantly returning to Wikipedia as can be seen here. Ryan creates articles about accidents(many of them obscure) even though he knows he isn't allowed to edit here anymore and that any edits he makes are to be deleted. I'm sorry to say this, but he's a nuisance. Ryan is creating work for WP administrators who have to be on the constant lookout for him and when they find his work then have to delete it. I hope that adequately explains the difference between the two discussions. Cheers!...William 13:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply I can see where you're coming from in terms of workload for sysops etc, but the original author of an article shouldn't really have any weight on whether it is deleted or not if other editors have contributed towards it. After all, Wikipedia is the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. As the article stands at the moment, there's no reason why it can't be redirected as per the page I stated earlier. Osarius     Talk 21:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Using the 'delete before redirecting' option in the AfD closing script would solve both problems - having a redirect while removing the banned user's "credits" per WP:DENY. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: No citations showing any evidence of WP:GNG; no evidence of enough importance to meet WP:AIRCRASH. --Closeapple (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2012 (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.