Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Al-Anbar CH-53E 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 no consensus. There's fundamental disagreement here about what makes a military aviation crash notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Al-Anbar CH-53E crash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very tragic, but non notable as a military accident with no notable passengers, actions, victims, consequences of effects on safety or aircraft operations WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, sad, but the article has no place in wikipedia, which is not a repository of every bump and scrape that occurs in aviation! Petebutt (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well I found it significant because this particular crash was the deadliest one, out of hundreds, to occur in the course of the Iraq War. It was also the incident that made January 26th, 2005 the deadliest day for coalition forces in eight years of fighting. Not to mention, the costliest accident in the history of this particular airframe. Although I do agree there is nothing really encyclopedic that transpired as a result of the crash and media coverage was slim, the accident, I think, holds a particular importance in the history of the Iraq War and the operational history of the CH-53E. Ftxs (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.I agree with Petebutt . It should be mentioned in the Iraw war page, certainly, in the context of that. But as it is, no high ranking profile people died, and it is one of many incidents in the war, all of which can't get a wikipedia page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People die in war; it's been sugarcoated by the media, but that's how it is. It's unfortunate, but s[tuff] happens, and there is nothing that makes this accident notable enough for its own article vis-a-vis being mentioned in the appropriate "this time period in the Iraq War" article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic but not notable military accident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This was the single most deadly incident to affect the US forces during the invasion and occupation of Iraq, so seems to justify an article (we have articles on much smaller incidents of the war). 31 fatalities in an air crash is a lot by modern standards. Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Ftxs that the crash was prominent, with a large number of casualties, resulting in the deadliest day of the war. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a sad event but military aircraft accidents are rarely noteworthy particularly combat related, can be added to the various list articles but doesnt need a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Parroting of CRASH (as SOLDIER) needs to stop. A F-16 crash is rarely notable, indeed. When 31 people die - it often is notable. In this case, this has been described as the deadliest day of the war - [1], and has been covered in a LASTING fashion - [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point to where WP:AIRCRASH has been mentioned in this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The comment above me appeared to be to be a quote from CRASH.Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the rationale that this incident contributed to the deadliest day of the war. Kees08 (Talk) 08:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Although I truly respect any uniform men and women for serving their countries and/or defend a good course, troops die and aircrafts shot down/crash are not significant news when it comes to war. The argument that it was one of the dealiest day of the American war in modern day but in comparing to hundred of civilians causality in an attack that would be mild and low in significant of the mission. The nobility is relative of a part to the whole. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.