Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hattiesburg plane 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. Missvain (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hattiesburg plane 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)

Tragic but general aviation accidents are rarely notable unless someone famous is on board. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:55, 5 May 2021 (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? 20:55, 5 May 2021 (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? 20:55, 5 May 2021 (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? 20:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just a comment for now...not a personal attack, but the Afd started by WilliamJE and the PROD done by Carguychris are easily a violation of WP:RAPID. The afd is more of how you preceive the policy, but for the record, the PROD was placed on less than 90 minutes after creation. I will actually assess notability after 24 hours, aka tomorrow, but for now, I believe this violates that policy and anyone who assesses the notability (Keep or delete !votes) also is violating it. Just wait 24 hours to see how it plays out. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated above, WP:RAPID Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 21:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it could progress Mausebru (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this is true of myriad non-notable events and is the reason why WP:NOTCRYSTAL exists. Yes, the event could eventually qualify for notability under WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Carguychris (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a routine light aircraft crash, tragic, but one of many thousands globally each year. No notable people involved, no lasting effects, fails WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ahunt. Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the FAA and NTSB are investigating. Still holding to this being WP:RAPID since we don't know if this could have a lasting impact. All it takes is to say the plane had a malfunction, and most likely, it would have a lasting impact. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - All aviation accidents are routinely investigated by the NTSB and a report completed. The fact that an investigation is being done does not confer any notability at all. See WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Guessing that this might result in some lasting regulatory or other lasting changes would be WP:CRYSTAL as well as highly unlikely. - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not actually your standard light aircraft crash. Most of them do not crash into houses and kill people on the ground. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that is why we have WP:NOTNEWS to cover that. - Ahunt (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt, forgive me, but can you explain how you can accurately use WP:NOTNEWS when WP:RAPID easily applies to this Afd, especially with the part of “…it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate…to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge.” In my mind, saying WP:NOTNEWS applies for something within the last day, means you believe that Wikipedia shouldn’t have any mention of it what so ever, since the event (not just the article) is ‘Not News’. So, could you explain your reasoning for why WP:NOTNEWS applies to this topic and not just this article? Elijahandskip (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Easy: They are not mutually exclusive and both apply. This is strictly a non-notable newspaper-type news story that should be deleted as per policy, as I have argued above, but I also agree with you that the nomination for AfD should have ideally waited a week or so until the newscycle died down and than it would have been more clear to more editors that it needs to be deleted. But, since we are here now, we are not going to !vote "keep" this week and then bring it back for deletion next week, so this AfD needs to continue to conclusion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:NOTNEWS is policy; WP:RAPID is a guideline. Grandpallama (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment @Necrothesp: Read this one[1] from this year where a child riding in his mother's car was killed after a plane crashed into it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And? I said it wasn't standard, not that it had never happened before. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this crash is WP:ROTM and merely illustrates how non-notable air crashes garner gratuitous press coverage, particularly when there's fire, property damage and casualties on the ground—"if it bleeds, it leads." Carguychris (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carguychris, there is news coverage, so I don't know what you really mean. Mausebru (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd summarizes it well in the post below. Light aircraft crashes are magnets for sensational media reports even when there is nothing truly exceptional or noteworthy about them. Carguychris (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT. Incident lacks "enduring historical significance" and "significant lasting effect". Per #4, (bold in original, underline is mine): Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Schazjmd (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Many accidents like this happen every year in America. There is no evidence of WP:PERSISTENCE in the future. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Run-of-the-mill general aviation accident like countless others. Tragic but without anything notable in Wikipedia's sense. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough to keep and largely already forgotten already by people anyway. A tragic accident indeed but far too brief a news story to warrant keeping. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This has all the makings of a WP:MILL and WP:NOTNEWS story. Love of Corey (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not notable, a routine accident. Alex-h (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and lacking in enduring historical significance. Johnnie Bob (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS appears to apply. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:42, 12 May 2021 (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.