Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N202LF
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The result was nom withdrawn, redirected. Sr13 07:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N202LF[edit]
An imporant helicopter because of its role, but not notable in encyclopedic terms. Thanks for trying to honor these lifesaving machines, but I'm afraid this just doesn't belong at Wikipedia. FWIW, the crash info also doesn't meet our in-development air crash notability criteria. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination, and concur on crash notability, interesting as it is.- BillCJ 18:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - Helicopters of that type meets criteria of WP:Notability. Needs improvement.--Edtropolis 19:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which criteria? There's not even a third-party source to establsih notability! The service the helicopter provides IS notable, and is covered in the Air ambulance and MEDEVAC articles. This individual aircraft, as the aritcle currently relates it, is not. To be notable, it would have had to have been involved in an icident or performed a service that was covered by major news orgs for an extended period of time, which at this point it appears it has not. - BillCJ 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Tragic and all, but this doesn't really seem to have any notability. A check of Google shows no news coverage. OSborn 19:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No less important, but this is like including peoples' ham radio callsigns, or license plate numbers. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, while echoing the comments above about a noble job and tragic circumstances, I'm forced to the conclusion that this helicopter does not individually meet our notability requirements. - Philippe | Talk 22:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete while I'm sure there will be local coverage of the accident (there was of a local crash here), I doubt most people will focus on the helicopter as the grounds for notability, and it's likely this crash won't get past the new news criteria on WP:NOT. The best I can suggest is covering this helicopter on the hospital's page. FrozenPurpleCube 00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt - can we not chop these choppers. They seem to keep coming up. There must be hundreds of air ambulance services in the world. We cannot have articles on them all, and certainly not in each choopper they use. Peterkingiron 23:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.-- Hawaiian717 21:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Keep as an accident article. -- Hawaiian717 17:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to "Crash of Eagle III" (or merge with Eagle III) — I agree that most of the N-number articles are a bit over the top, but this Afd goes too far, because this one has special circumstances. The statement above about no press coverage is demonstrably false. A simple web search turns up this photo archive: [1], plus a news archive search for that local paper turned up several stories over a period of more than one year about the crash: [2] so this demonstrates continuing interest, not to mention the ongoing NTSB investigation, which shows more than just local interest. It was also covered in the Air Medical Journal, Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages 152-157, but that content is restricted. Dhaluza 18:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - of the suggestions, since there's refs, I'd support the merge into the Eagle III article. I don't think the crash really is notable on its own, but put into the context of the program and its service to the community, it is appropriate. By the close of this AfD, if no one has already done that, I'll be happy to do the work.AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- comment - Unless you intend to significantly expand the Eagle III article, I think the better option is to keep the crash info in a separate article for context. Otherwise the crash content will be overwhelming and the article will lack balanced coverage. Dhaluza 23:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this mean we're converting the page to a full accident article? If so, then I would probably support keeping it, assuming notability is established. (And judging by Dhaluza's previous work ont he SW runway incident, it will be.) But again, it's up to those creating and editing the article to establish notability, not the nominator of the AfD. (And as much as I wish that was the rule, it isn't!) If not for the crash, then this one would have already been deleted along with the other 2 Eagle III helicopter pages. - BillCJ 00:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is already done. But I disagree with you slightly in your interpretation, because we are all editors, and improving articles to meet WP standards is a shared responsibility. This shows you still need to do research, to make sure you don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Dhaluza 01:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that that is the way it should be, but the AfD rules currently stand, it is not. If it were, I would have filed alot of RFCs agianst a number of editors for frivo;ous AfDs on several articles I contribute to. If you want to try to get the AfD rules changed, I'll back you on it. But as for now, an AfD nominator is free not to try to examine or improve an articel first, especially if it's a type of aritlce (ie. pop-culture) that they feel should not exist on Wiki at all. - BillCJ 18:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is already done. But I disagree with you slightly in your interpretation, because we are all editors, and improving articles to meet WP standards is a shared responsibility. This shows you still need to do research, to make sure you don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Dhaluza 01:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this mean we're converting the page to a full accident article? If so, then I would probably support keeping it, assuming notability is established. (And judging by Dhaluza's previous work ont he SW runway incident, it will be.) But again, it's up to those creating and editing the article to establish notability, not the nominator of the AfD. (And as much as I wish that was the rule, it isn't!) If not for the crash, then this one would have already been deleted along with the other 2 Eagle III helicopter pages. - BillCJ 00:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Unless you intend to significantly expand the Eagle III article, I think the better option is to keep the crash info in a separate article for context. Otherwise the crash content will be overwhelming and the article will lack balanced coverage. Dhaluza 23:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm invoking my right to be wrong in life, and given Dhaluza's improvements and argument above, I'm withdrawing my initial deletion endorsement that was implied in the nom. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the content has been moved to 2006 Eagle III accident, cleaned up, and referenced. I suggest that this article remain as a redirect. Dhaluza 01:09, 17 June 2007 (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.