Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 SOCATA TBM 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 SOCATA TBM crash[edit]

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

Tragic but not notable general aviation accident. Nobody notable on board. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. ...William 23:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 00:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 00:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions....William 00:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions ...William 00:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the article ought to be left intact as its reference list obviously gives reliable sources, such as BBC and Reuters. The article itself is largely accurate and supported by documentation, and the significance of the event lies beyond its apparent factual content. It is an example of a lost presumed-to-be tracked flight in modern times, much like Flight 19 almost 70 years later.
Agree, not notable. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Devil's advocate here. Military aircraft intercepted the plane before it crashed, which doesn't happen often. That might make it notable. Illegitimate Barrister 02:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like the 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash which took Payne Stewart it's very rare for a disabled plane to travel a long distance like this, and the loss of a major building developer in Rochester, New York nulls the 'nobody notable' argument. It's going to be noted how this happened once the wreckage is recovered and why and this nomination is premature. Nate • (chatter) 03:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it does not 'null the nobody-notable argument'. The person is not Wikinotable and, therefore, does not meet the requirements. The Stewart-esque flight does not create a notability case either - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the presumption has to be against notability for general aviation accidents like this. (Even if someone notable was on board, the accident probably belongs in the article of the notable person, not as an independent article.) Some accidents might be an exception to this presumption, but it is too soon to judge whether this will be one of the exceptions. (Commercial aviation accidents, especially those with mass fatalities, the opposite presumption applies; both because of the number of fatalities, and also because of the greater potential for commercial or regulatory impacts.) SJK (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that's not the case: if somebody Wikinotable is on board, the accident, itself, is considered notable, by WP:CONSENSUS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An accident with a regretfully common cause (cabin depressurisation is not rare); no Wikinotable people involved; not a scheduled flight. May be worthy of mention in the TBM900 article at some point, but doesn't come close to the standard for a standalone article - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Small plane crashes, and cabin depressurizations for that matter, occur very often. This, along with the minimal casualty count justifies the deletion of this article. It is all too easy to fall into believing that something is notable when there is extensive short term coverage of the event. Wikipedia:Notability (events) explains this well. — Harpsichord246 (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The TBM 900 is a new entry in a rapidly growing category of pressurized single engine aircraft. Accidental depressurization during cruise is an important new class of accident. There may be an important lesson for private pilots here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.212.103.44 (talk)

TBM-900 is merely a variant of the TBM-700, in fact it is the TBM-700N re-designated. Not new at all seeing as the first flight was in 1983--Petebutt (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- nn accident, hypoxia not proven as NTSB have only just begun their investigation. FWIW, the Payne Stewart Learjet crash would have been nn had he not been on board. Mjroots (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Complex enough case - probably depressurization, loss of contact, overflight of Cuba, Jamaican angle. And besides, WP:Wikipedia is not paper G0T0 (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No One Notable On Board! Oh my goodness, I thought we were all "Notable"! This case is going to be far reaching. Not only for the unusual circumstances, but that the aircraft in question was "BRAND NEW" - 2014 Model. Unless pilot error is found, this could be a game changer for the manufacture of these type of aircraft. And I personally sought Wikipedia out for information on this exact accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.194.234 (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SOCATA TBM#Accidents and incidents. I agree it's non-notable, but since a valid redirect target exists, why not? Ansh666 00:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Re-direct - not notable general aviation accident. At best a paragraph or entry in the aircraft article / Accidents of 2014 article.--Petebutt (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this accident is very important because of the circumstances in which was happened. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The media is paying close attention to the case and it is somewhat mysterious at this moment. --The Count of Tuscany (TALK) 07:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For now, at least. It meets WP:GNG in having significant media coverage in reliable sources, and is likely to be continuing coverage as there are many unanswered questions about the circumstances of crash, especially the apparently-denied request to descend to a lower altitude. If it should prove to be non-notable once the investigation has finished, unlikely though that seems at this time, then it can be merged to the aircraft article. - BilCat (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into SOCATA TBM#Accidents and incidents. Better handled on the plane article. I sufficiently notable for its own article but notable in the context of the plane itself. E x nihil ^(talk) 14:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mysteriousness of this incident is what sets this apart from other small plane crashes. SOXROX (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable general aviation accident. --Nockayoub (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into SOCATA TBM#Accidents and incidents. Media coverage is due to WP:RECENTISM, I don't think the accident will have historical significance 10-20 years later. Brandmeister^talk 12:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SOCATA TBM#Accidents and incidents (where it was described immediately after the story started to receive coverage). At this time, not so notable (and not enough is known) as to require its own article. The existence of mystery is not sufficient to establish notability. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This incident is notable for its unusual circumstances, rather than for its casualty count or any physical damage/destruction inflicted. Another disappearance of an aircraft which was tracked and its location presumed to be known. The failure to locate the wreckage as of today, 8 September, places this incident in the "curious" category at the very least, if not in the "extremely unusual" one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yavorpenchev (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but still NN--Petebutt (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This incident received much news focus, and this kind of incident, with hypoxia causing a plane to be out of control, is unusual enough to be noteworthy. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's pretty clear now that this plane crash has become notable with the continued in-depth coverage. I added about four recent sources and it is receiving sustained coverage. I am One of Many (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2014 (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.