Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missinippi Airways Cessna 208 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. There is clearly a consensus that this subject now meets WP:AIRCRASH. Rlendog (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missinippi Airways Cessna 208 Crash[edit]

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

This article concerns a non-notable crash, failing to meet criteria set out in WP:AIRCRASH. It also fails WP:GNG and falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS - even the news reports were scanty, tending to be repeats of a news service, and there has been no follow-up coverage. Other mentions found tend to be in databases documenting all air crashes. YSSYguy (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. just because one person is killed on an aircraft doesn't mean it's guaranteed an article. There are bus crashes that had killed more people, yet there are nothing written about them.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Missinippi Airways article. Per WP:AIRCRASH, the aircraft is under 5,700 kg and the accident does not meet the third bullet point. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the suspension of Missinippi Airways operator's licence by Transport Canada means that the accident now meets WP:AIRCRASH, as there were fatalities, a hull loss and changes to procedures. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no Missinippi Airways article. If you want to merge it where do you merge it? This article must stand alone, or it will be deleted which it doesn't need to happen to it.Springyboy (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that someone within the company did the deletion for public relations? Suggest recreating that article, then incorporating this into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.26.138 (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No - there's no indication that a previously-named article existed, at least not when I tried it. PK T(alk) 16:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 16:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article in question is very poorly written, the grammar is bad, the article is not really that informative. It does not seem to me that (as said above) that it is not entirely in compliance with WP:GNG or WP:NOTNEWS. Sure it goes along with WP:AIRCRASH but that is not substantial enough for me as reliable encyclopedic content.Dusty777 (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That an article needs to be improved is not a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a relatively minor page but part of a much larger and more important series. It's well referenced by multiple independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the news sources do seem to be mainly repeating the same limited info. The Air Safety Network entry cites a local radio station for its info. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2011 (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.