Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Austin 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 keep. Keep per WP:SNOW. There's no way that consensus to delete this is going to be reached. Fences&Windows 15:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Austin plane crash[edit]

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

This may prove to be controversial, but I think the debate is one that will need to happen at some point. The event does not pass WP:NOTNEWS or WP:EVENT and has no lasting significance. The coverage is better suited to Wikinews, who seem to be doing a good job of it. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 14:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL. __meco (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain how the snowball clause applies to this situation? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for now. While I don't have the most knowledge about the incident, it seems to be an act of terrorism by one person. It resulted in deaths, and was against a government agency. I don't know if it is early enough to judge the article's notability, but considering it is an act of terrorism, I think it should stay for now. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the 2002 Tampa plane crash did minimal damage but has an article.username 1 (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and ban nominator. Just kidding but keep. So many articles of this type are taken to AfD and are almost always kept. If this type of article is really in violation of "WP:NOT" then maybe it is time to change WP:NOT to reflect reality. You know, "descriptive not prescriptive" and all that. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The event is notable, has received wide media coverage, and articles on similar events also exist and have not been deleted (see: 2002 Tampa plane crash, 2010 Las Vegas courthouse shooting, 2009 Pittsburgh police shootings, just to name a few). WTF? (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is nothing more than an elaborate suicide by someone pissed of at the taxman and it's getting next to no coverage outside the US. The coverage it is getting from the likes of CNN is nothing more than "9/11 all over again" hyperbole. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:12, 19 February 2010 (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.