Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Brazilian Air Force Cessna 208B Grand Caravan 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Brazilian Air Force Cessna 208B Grand Caravan Crash

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

Contested PROD with no reason given other than "WP:AIRCRASH is only an essay". Leaving aside the issue of "it meets AIRCRASH, let's keep it / it doesn't meet AIRCRASH, but that's only an essay, let's keep it", the article should be deleted per WP:EVENT. YSSYguy (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —YSSYguy (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, random plane crash with no lasting significance. Wikipedia does not exist to document everything that ever happened in the world. Look at the references in the article; tiny wire reports of the crash. Speciate (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Speciate. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As it is a light aircraft under 12,500 lbs, it fails WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Light aircraft with no one notable onboard, so unless the Brazilian Air Force changes their regulations as a result of this, it resoundingly fails WP:AIRCRASH. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable aviation accident. Acroterion (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no intention of taking the WP:AIRCRASH essay seriously - it's not policy, and if it ever were, it would be orthogonal to existing notability policy, in a way that would create drama. Our existing notability policies are fine, and I think this article fails them. bobrayner (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2011 (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.