Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlyMontserrat Flight 107

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. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FlyMontserrat Flight 107[edit]

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

Notability Petebutt (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a fatal plane crash on a passenger airline, so it passes WP:AIRCRASH. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 10:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crashes of airliners are regularly included as background into carriers; this appears to be notable in so far as being the first for this airline, and with (unfortunately) significant mortality. Jkstark (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nom has provided zero argument as to why this article should be deleted. The word single word "notability" is nonsensical as they provide no reason why this has a "notability" issue, if that's even why the nom put this up for AfD to begin with. As the others have said, it passes our inclusion criterion. --Oakshade (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:DENY and WP:EVENT, and the failure to meet the GNG. The article creator is a Community-banned serial sockpuppeteer with over one hundred different accounts. However, even if this was created by an editor of good standing, there is no significant widespread coverage, just reportage that the crash took place. By all means mention the crash in the FlyMontserrat article, but this does not warrant a separate article. YSSYguy (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are multiple references provided to back up the claims that this clearly did happen. Perhaps this article is a bit long winded but it is just being thorough. For the longest time, there wasn't even a page on FlyMontserrat until this article was published here. Hydraera

Nobody is disputing that it happened, but reporting that it happened does not automatically confer notability. There is no need to have an article about what is a tiny airline and then a seperate article about a crash involving the airline; and keeping this work of a persistent sockpuppeteer will only encourage him to keep creating accounts. YSSYguy (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the work of a banned user which is not really notable for a stand-alone article, nothing wrong with a mention in the airline article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As mentioned above, there are plenty of references for this being a real event, it was a fatal accident, and the original nomination was very weak anyway. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep it because it happened and people died and media reported it" is also a pretty weak argument. Just about every single fatal car crash and every aircraft crash that occurs in Australia is mentioned in the media - they have a lot of space to fill. YSSYguy (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any crash with a commercial airliner, even with a small aircraft such as this one, generates significant attention from safety authorities, and reasonably extensive and lasting coverage in the media in general. The two delete votes above (YSSYguy and MilborneOne) believe that including the crash in the FlyMontserrat article is better, which is not a ridiculous viewpoint, but that resolution would involve merging and redirecting instead of deleting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:15, 18 October 2012 (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.