Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Norfolk helicopter 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 delete. Ultimately the WP:NOTNEWS argument has not been successfully refuted. Open to draftifying if someone contacts me undertaking to work on it. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Norfolk helicopter crash[edit]

2014 Norfolk helicopter crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Military crashes are quite common and there is nothing notable about this one. ...William 11:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions....William 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions....William 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Fatal helicopter accidents while always sad occurrences are not that uncommon, particularly in the military. No indication that this has lasting significance. Unless something emerges over the next few days indicating possible lasting effects or something particularly unusual, it should be deleted as failing established policies on notability of events, particularly air crashes. We do have articles on 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash and 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash, but they are seen as more unusual events which may have lasting effects on how helicopters are operated. The following AfD decisions (all delete) are relevant: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 French helicopter crash (French military helicopter crash kills 7), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Antarctica helicopter crash (4 killed from research station), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Berlin helicopter crash (2nd nomination) (1 police officer killed). In contrast 2011 Chinook shootdown in Afghanistan was kept, but it was "the worst loss of U.S Military life in a single incident in the Afghanistan campaign" and hence important for the history of the war. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Simple routine accident. -EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too early to say. Until the accident investigation has reported, there is no way to know whether this incident is significant or not. Therefore judgements such as 'nothing notable about this one' and 'simple routine accident' are pure unsubstantiated speculation (as if any air accident could be ever be 'simple routine'). Some people are in such a rush to erase other people's efforts. 85.210.175.111 (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too early to say. This may not be a notable accident for now but until the inquiry determinants the cause the accident the article should stay until recommendations are realest. I can give several examples like maybe flying near a nature reserves during low flying training would be changed or to pilot training or any mechanical failure and weather which may of let to the crash but we don't know as of yet because it's been less then 24 hours and new information about the accident will come and paint a better picture of the accident. But like I said keep until the inquest has ended and then vote for deletion. NorthHuanter (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The above account (the article creator) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a community banned editor. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article was started by someone else; the sockpuppet account was one of several contributors (including me). —rybec 10:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The crash is generating quite a bit of news coverage in Britain at present, and it is rather unusual to have a crash involving an advanced US military helicopter, there could possibly be a few issues still to come out. PatGallacher (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I see no real rush here. It's certainly not routine for an American asset to crash in the incredibly featureless Norfolk marshlands with four fatalities. So, like NorthHunter, it's a little to early to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If not for WP:RECENTISM we wouldn't be having much of a debate. There are tons of military accident accidnets like this littering the archives of Aviation Safety Network and many of them with much bigger death tolls than 4 but no article. The difference between those and this- It happened yesterday....William 16:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I think the point I'm making is that we don't regularly have USAF helicopters crash in East Anglia with four fatalities over the flattest part of the country. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • However that does not, in any way, establish notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well of course it makes it notable. It's not like a crash in Afghanistan is it? It's one of the most reliable airframes in the USAF, so if mechanical failure has occurred, this is rare. But never mind, the usual clamour and rush to delete an article before we find out what happens is beginning, won't be long before someone links us to WP:AIRCRASH claiming it to be some kind of holy text. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, geographic location does not make a crash any more or less notable. Unless you're claiming systemic bias is a good thing? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Now that's where you're wrong. Are you suggesting that the helicopter that crashed in central London was not more notable than a helicopter that crashed in a field in Wales? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, review later Nothing we know about it so far makes this accident notable, but there's no hurry to make a decision. Wait until the investigation and inquest are completed. 86.5.176.168 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, review later. While it was probably too soon to create the article, based on the limited information available, it is certainly too soon to delete the article - there is insufficient evidence to accurately determine its notability either way at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the sad deaths of the crew and loss of the helicopter, military accidents are generally not notable in their own right!!--Petebutt (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a notable accident. Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is it a news service, and having generated "quite a bit of news coverage" does not establish WP:PERSISTENCE that is required for notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTTHENEWS. The collision between two RAF Grob Tutor light aircraft at Porthcawl in February 2009 had a lot of news coverage as two of the victims were schoolgirls who also happened to be cousins. This was reinforced when another tutor hit a glider a few months later killing another schoolchild. A well referenced article grew from these events but that has subsequently been deleted. I see no reason to expect that coverage of this event will be as extensive.--Charles (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:CRYSTAL. My guess is that you are probably right, but it's far too early to know. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who deleted Porthcawl mid air collision because I read the report same with the two Red Arrow accidents of 2011 and the changes that were made would make the accidents notable? This accident cause is still unknown and the article stay until the inquest in compete. It makes it more odd that the aircraft is one the safety helicopters used in the US Air Force and a military crashes are common are they more common then car crashes, NO! it crashed into featherless area with no high ground or other and to say military accident would occur more during war zones and training but in some cases unlike in a war zone changes can be made to make flying safer. One more thing I would like to stay is Aviation accidents are less common in some area then others which is good and some area are slowly getting better in aviation safety I.E Russia and Asia but it's odd when it happens. Accidents happen like this is odd, that a crash would happen is the first place but more odd is the circumstances of the accident. Which has led to many questions on what caused this accident. Keep until inquest is done to deiced notability. 13:59, 8 January 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.34.52 (talk)
      • WP:CRYSTAL is about article content not talk page discussion.--Charles (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sad but military flying is dangerous and they crash often but that doesnt make them particularly notable unless they hit something notable or kill somebody notable, not the case here. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a well-written article. I think four deaths in any single helicopter crash in UK it notable. The fact that it was a USAF accident on UK soil seems to make it more notable. And although it's unlikely, it may be part of a larger picture, so I'd certainly keep until the investigation is completed. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just to note that the USAF have been based in the UK for sixty years and accidents are not that rare with British-based aircraft like this helicopter. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Is there any article that tells us how many and/or lists them? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here at least I guess. Is it ok to link it there while this AfD runs? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No indication of anything notable or of lasting consequence in the accident. We don't keep non-notable articles in case they one day become notable. - Ahunt (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't advocate "one day", I'd suggest until report is published. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we should consider our WP:READER who may wish to learn more about the Pave Hawk or the USAF deployments in the UK or the Norfolk coastline. They don't know about WP:AIRCRASH or WP:NOTNEWS (and would probably crack a grin at the fact that we have a main page section called "In The News"....)], nor do they care. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be more profitable for you and the encyclopaedia if you actually wrote in English and not ESSAYS etc. Take a step back from all that and try to see the sense here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There seems to be no reason to think that this sad accident will have any long-term ramifications or will receive prolonged coverage. Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, pathetic really. There are two ways to cut this. So shall we now focus on the utility of the page rather than continually fling CAPITAL LETTERS at each other? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fatal accident with serious damage to the aircraft. NickSt (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable crash. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable accident: did not involve "the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia" and there is no indication that the accident will result "in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft)." Regarding the latter clause, the article may be restored following the official inquiry if the inquiry results in significant changes as outlined. Unless and until such changes occur, this remains a non-notable, albeit tragic, incident, which is suitably recorded at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 15:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hasty, considering this aircraft "may have the best safety record of any helicopter that the United States military has ever owned." and it crashed in one of the most featureless parts of the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know, it isn't necessary to respond to everyone else's comments/!votes here. See WP:BLUDGEON. As for safety records, this isn't the first Pave Hawk to crash and unfortunately probably won't be the last. See also the 13 August 2002, 23 March 2003, 20 October 2004 crashes. As for the site in Norfolk being "one of the most featureless parts of the world", you clearly haven't seen it. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Thanks for introducing yet ANOTHER set of capitals) I've only responded to your !vote. Other comments have been, well, comments. This is a discussion you know. And yes, there have been other crashes, but this is a peacetime crash with four fatalities, not comparable to those you've linked to. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perfectly comparable: crashes during operational flights which were not as a result of hostile actions. Two of the a/m crashes also involved loss of crews. Where's the difference? Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 16:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Perfectly comparable"? If I have to explain why not, it's clearly going to be wasted! argh, bludgeoned to death by my own comment... argh! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Neither the fact the helicopter has a good safety record or the remoteness of its location provide notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've checked the latest news about this and it looks like there is nothing particularly significant ever since. 2-4 deaths is (still, unfortunately) a relatively frequent death toll, similar to that of private aircraft. This is already commemorated in 2014 in aviation anyway and can be expanded there further. If something important about it surfaces in the future, the article can be recreated, but so far WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL (even though I generally believe in the zodiac astrology). Brandmeistertalk 10:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Also, there is no deadline; we can easily recreate this in the future. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draft so that this well-written article can continue to be developed and to give time for an informed assessment of whether the event is to have enduring significance. This is what draft space is for. Thincat (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or move to draft or userfy). Non-notable accident unless/until it has enduring significance. DexDor (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The unique circumstances in which this specific crash took place make it notable.Leptictidium (mt) 07:51, 22 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_Norfolk_helicopter_crash&oldid=1137518943"