Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Addison King Air 350 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Addison King Air 350 crash

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

General Aviation crash without anyone notable on board are rarely notable and WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to have involved a Wikinotable person. Mjroots (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The no one famous was on board so it's not notable is weird suggestion, but okay. Received WP:SIGCOV from national outlets such as CNN and NYT to fully pass WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS standard doesn't apply here for a myriad of reasons including: 1) Crashes with 10+ fatalities are exceedingly rare in the US (accidents happening that cause damage to an airport, even more so) meaning this isn't just a non-notable or WP:ROUTINE news story. 2) Coverage on the subject has been going on for nearly a year now, showing enduring notability and interest beyond the short term news cycle. WP:PERSISTENCE Sulfurboy (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Every year there are thousands of light aircraft accidents like this one. Nothing distinguishes this from the myriad of other ones that we have no articles about: no wiki-notable people involved, no lasting effects, no airworthiness directives, no changes to regulations, no changes to ATC procedures, just sweep up the wreckage and move on. This accident is not any more notable than any boat, bus or car crash with deaths. Please do not mistake the news media's breathless coverage of every last aircraft crash, while ignoring all other transportation accidents, as making this notable. That is why we specify Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - Ahunt (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that there are thousands of light aircraft accidents each year, but disagree with the "like this one" notion. Crashes with this many deaths are exceedingly rare since most accidents happen with single or duel occupant planes. There can't be more than maybe a dozen accidents with this many fatalities in the US in the past few years. Agree also to no changes in regulations or procedures, but this may be due to the investigation being ongoing. Cheers. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is another general aviation accident[1] that killed over a dozen that was deleted at AFD[2] A high death toll doesn't make something automatically notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~This incident does not comply with WP:AIRCRASH.~~ -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dodger67, Per that essay you linked: "Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." This is both AfD and a stand-alone accident article. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you clarify what it doesn't comply with in that policy? From what I see all that essay is about is when to include an accident on an airline/airport/aircraft page and this actually passes two of the three prongs ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sulfurboy (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piont taken, struck that part of my post Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Regarding the previous comments: if some aspect of the crash spawns an AD or a regulatory or policy change, then the article can be recreated at that time. Concerning WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, the only news story from the past 6 months about the accident concerns a lawsuit filed by the survivor's families, which falls under WP:NOTNEWS; wrongful-death lawsuits are (sadly) routine after multiple-fatality GA air crashes where a (presumably insured) third-party operator is involved. Nothing indicates that the lawsuit is any different than myriad others. Carguychris (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From comments at the Wikiproject for Aviation discussion about this, it's even admitted to that in the past articles such as this are typically kept in AfD. Yet, here comes a flood of delete votes all from users associated with this specific project all chirping the same thing. Just because it was a newsworthy event does not mean it falls under WP:NOTNEWS, that's not what that policy is for. And all these delete votes seem a bit gatekeepy and in the face of known previous precedent and consensus. Seems like you all need to work together to try to get consensus on a notability policy surrounding accidents instead of incorrectly using your own essays like above (and as seen in other AfDs). Might save some time in the future so you all don't have to keep ballot stuffing individual AfDs? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Sulfurboy (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We have a longstanding consensus on accidents like this, which is what you are seeing expressed here and which is in line with Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NOTNEWS. My comment here was an expression of frustration that whenever non-notable aircraft crashes are brought to AfD they are inevitably opposed by editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and also unfamiliar with aircraft accidents and the lack of enduring changes as a result of most light aircraft and military aircraft accidents. Instead what we see is that consensus and policy gets drowned out by "gosh an airplane crashed, we must have an article in that!" I never hear that about car accidents, truck or bus accidents, motorcycle accidents or even bicycle or boating accidents. This is solely because editors rely on coverage in the general, non-aviation media, which, as I noted, breathlessly reports on aircraft accidents in a way that they do not report on other transportation accidents. This is just due to media sensationalism and nothing else. We are an encyclopedia, we don't need to let non-specialized media reports decide our notably for us and in fact we have a policy on that: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which explains: "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm quite certain if a motorcycle or bicycle accident had 10 fatalities it would receive significant press coverage if for no other reason than the crazy circumstances in which that could happen. Further, bus or boat accidents with that many fatalities would almost certainly be reported on, not sure what notion or evidence you have to back your suggestion. These are all complete non-sequiturs anyways. All the declines rely on this idea that this is just routine or happens all of the time (including one crazy suggestion that thousands of accidents like this happen each year) when you all, considering your involvment with the project, should know that accidents with this many deaths is exceedingly rare on US soil.
  Also, quite bold to suggest most people coming into these AfDs are "editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies". Sulfurboy (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough notability to have a stand alone article. - Samf4u (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. See Bus plunge. While not in the same category, see also this recent NOTNEWS-Afd involving 10 deaths. Note: I am revising my vote to Redirect to Addison Airport#Accidents and incidents, where the incident is already covered, to WP:PRESERVE it as a reference for future investigations regarding the specific aircraft type, which was involved in other crashes. StonyBrook (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with the redirect suggestion. I plan to add more content to the accident entry in the ADS article when more documented facts emerge. Carguychris (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – yes, the death count is considerable but not unusual for the type, and none of the victims is notable. There have been numerous King Air crashes over the years; we only covered a handful of them: the unusual ones and the ones with notable victims (and a couple of other King Air articles should probably be AfD-ed too). --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify: I would suggest "Keeping" the article until the report is released; that will give us a better indication of the noteworthiness of the accident. In lieu of that, I would suggesting "Draftifying" it. I also echo Sulfurboy's thoughts. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2020 (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.