Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 De Havilland Dragon 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. G5: Created by banned user in violation of ban Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 De Havilland Dragon crash[edit]

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

Sad event but not unlike thousands of other private aircraft accidents is not particularly notable just recent news (not relevant but just to note article was created by a banned user), contested prod MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This particular De Havilland DH-84 Dragon is of historical significance as it was only one of four that remained in existence. The DH-84 type first flew in 1932 and were produced into WWII. Now only three remain. 01:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.0.244 (talk) — 71.253.0.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - partly per WP:DENY, but as far as I can tell this aircraft was not in airline service at the time of its loss. Can be adequately covered in the accidents and incidents section of the article on the aircraft type. Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a few days and see where we are. Although this article does conform to WP:GNG, it fails almost every point within WP:EVENT so on balance I'd think Mjroots' suggestion regarding the aircraft type page is likely the best route. However, the one thing I would highlight is the "don't rush to delete" principle. I can't see it happening, but a couple more days should be allowed to see if this event does have some wider consequences (debate on safety standards among vintage aircraft operators; grounding of all Dragon/Dragon Rapide aircraft still flying; etc.) which may justify an article. If nothing appears by, say, Saturday, then get rid. Pyrop e 21:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Qworty (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the article is about the aircraft, not the crash. If there is anything notable about that it will emerge only after the investigation. --AJHingston (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sad though it is, the accident does not seem to meet criteria for a stand-alone article, though rates an entry in de Havilland Dragon#Accidents and incidents Petebutt (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the above notwithstanding, why was this not G5'd? The creator is a sock of community banned mass sockpuppeteer (113 confirmed socks and counting) User:Ryan kirkpatrick. WP:DENY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has a Checkuser confirmed that? , if so then there is no more need for discussion.Petebutt (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if there is anything unique here to supplement the info on this incident already in the De Havilland Dragon article Celtechm (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 6-fatality crash on a small plane happens rather commonly; other than the age of the plane when it crashed nothing much of note here. Had it crashed when the plane was 10 years old killing 6 people, we would have speedied it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, Carlos. At the age of 10 years, a DH.84 Dragon would likely have been in airline service and thus more likely to be able to sustain an article. The number of deaths does not necessarily denote notability, although the higher the death toll the more weight is added. We have many articles where there were no deaths at all, yet the accident or incident is notable enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sad to be saying this, but with it just being a small private air crash it has to be deleted. There has been a lot of coverage here in Aus, but not much worldwide attention. It has no criteria to demand for an article.Springyboy (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Delete it now!!!!

Sockpuppet of Ryan Kirkpatrick!!!!Petebutt (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as speedy G5. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that looks like a done deal, and I concur, even if this is most probably my favorite aircraft type in all the world!TheLongTone (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2012 (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.