Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 UKIP PZL-104 Wilga crash

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Nigel Farage. There is a consensus that the incident is worth mentioning somewhere but not as a separate article. I'll redirect to Farage's article since it is mentioned there. History can be accessed. Tone 07:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 UKIP PZL-104 Wilga crash[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2010 UKIP PZL-104 Wilga crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a news service. This event, while marginally interesting through the timing and the passenger, does not, and likely never will, pass our specific guidance on when to and when not to write about such events. It has a satisfactory Wikinews article, there's no need for this to be here. MickMacNee (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article meets WP:AIRCRASH guidelines in that a Wikinotable person (Nigel Farage) is significantly involved. Had the aircraft just been carrying the pilot then I agree that coverage wouldn't need to extend past a couple of sentences in the articles on UKIP and the election. In this case, I believe the notability threshold has been passed.
Other factors to consider are that the flight may have been illegal on at least two counts - contrary to the Polling Stations (Regulation) Bill by attempting to conduct election activity within 250m (vertically!) of a polling station when an election was taking place, and also contrary to the Air Navigation Order by taking a passenger whilst engaged in banner towing. OK, this is getting into WP:CRYSTAL territory, and the investigation by the AAIB will take months. Any prosecution would be by the CAA, again a process which could take months. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. WP:AIRCRASH is currently an essay, presumably because it contains wording that suggests all that is required for an article is a significantly involved a blue-linked passenger. That clearly isn't inline with our actual guidelines about such current events articles. Even if it turns out to have lasting effect on him as a person, it still arguably wouldn't make the crash itself notable.
2. wp:crystal aside, I harldy think the fact the flight's notability as an air incident is boosted by its notability as a breach of electoral law. Had it landed safely and he was later arrested and prosecuted, I hardly think anybody would even think of creating an article on that event. MickMacNee (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mick, thanks for your comments. You are quite within your rights to nominate the article for deletion, but may I please ask that you don't comment to every editor who votes "keep". You've stated why you feel the article should be deleted, I've stated why I feel it should be kept. Let's now let the debate run and allow due process to take place without further comment from either of us unless a direct question is asked of us. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think one comment is innappropriate. If/when I start repeating myself or badgering mutliple people, then you can start dishing out the advice. As it is, what with you being the creator and all, I find this advice highly innappropriate, an attempt to stifle the very debate you want to see occur. I reserve the right to comment on any new argument made, and seeing as it wasn't mentioned in the article, I could hardly have been expected to pre-empt the electiion law issue being put up as a defence, in the nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't advice, it was a request, that's all. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: we ought to wait and see the level of coverage that this incident earns. As a developing story, it's a bit premature to render judgment on something that, while apparently trivial, has been widely reported in many sources. At present, I'm leaning merge or keep, but I'd wait 3 or 4 days before entering a definitive vote (to avoid too much supposition). (Presuming that this AfD discussion continues for the customary period and results in a merge, we'll know better at closure whether to merge to the UKIP article, or to Farage's article. If deleted, I wouldn't oppose re-creation at a later date if the CAA report on this incident earns significant coverage.) Notability of this incident is, in my mind, separate from notability of its victims. Regarding WP:AIRCRASH, I don't think there's sufficient acceptance of that essay to base an AfD decision on its arbitrary criteria—it's therefore not a significant factor in my rationale, which instead relies upon the much more robust WP:GNG. TheFeds 22:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay so I I really don't give a toss about it. But this fails WP:NOTNEWS as it is highly unlikely to have any lasting significance.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge salient details to Nigel Farage, fails [[WP:NOTNEWS}}. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was in the headlines for half an hour, but now the tabloids have found other things to fixate on and this event has no lasting notability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The small plane injury accident is referred to in the article about Nigel Farage, and there's no need to describe the technical details about the pitot tube separating from the aircraft and breaking the strut. Mandsford (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, people will want to know the cause of the crash, damage and such. Wikipedia is the 'sum total of human knowledge', after all. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 21:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So toss in the link to the accident report [1] as part of the mention in Farage's article. Mandsford (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but merge the relevant details into Nigel Farage. Was very surprised to see this had its own article, but the info is warranted on the notable individuals page. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - passing event of no long-term notability, which doesn't satisfy the notability requirements for air disasters. No merge needed, as the significant content is already in the Nigel Farage article. Robofish (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nigel Farage -- This crash of a light aircraft trying to do some kind of stunt on election day is merely one incident in his life, but otherwise NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hinton-in-the-Hedges Airfield, which has a significant mention of this accident. I consider that merging with Nigel Farage would be slightly inappropriate because whilst news coverage is still ongoing about the accident from his perspective, I doubt his article being the centre of attention for a disaster at an airfield would be in keeping with the general political and biographical theme of that article. Macintosher (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there'll be no Keep consensus... Merge per Macintosher. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 20:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like this will result in a merge. If that is the result, then the article on the airfield would be the better target. Should changes be introduced to the practice of banner towing as a result of this action, then I would expect that the article could be recreated and expanded. Any AAIB report is likely to take at least several months, thus any CAA action is probably going to be in the timescale of a year or two. Mjroots (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your agreement on my suggestion to merge it with the airfield article. Whilst I'm writing you might like to be aware that the BBC is still continuing coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macintosher (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference is still keep, but I'll bow to consensus. Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge without prejudice against re-creating article later, if accident report has substantial new information. It doesn't look like any new and significant developments have surfaced regarding this story that would serve to improve the article or raise the profile of this event. I think the content is probably better suited to Farage's article—while the accident did occur at that airport, the coverage has seemed to centre around Farage himself. TheFeds 16:28, 11 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2010_UKIP_PZL-104_Wilga_crash&oldid=1075693715"