Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Richmond helicopter crash: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:09, 3 September 2014

HMS Richmond helicopter crash

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

WP:GNG military crashes are generally not notable as they are an operational hazard in a high risk environment. There were no lasting effects to procedures or the aircraft and there were no notable people onboard Petebutt (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the spokesperson said - "as far as we are aware, there is no issue of safety with the Lynx or indication about defects which could be proven in other aircraft". No impact on the industry or even that line of aircraft in the context of that service. Tragic, but it fails WP:EVENT. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, as the nominator would have seen had they done due diligence and Googled it. And even if that weren't so, the Royal Navy's first loss of a female pilot (an aspect which generated significant media attention, again, due diligence...) is clearly significant. It's nominations like these that give the deletion process a bad name. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE is important, but the WP:BURDEN is on the article creator. The coverage in this instance is almost entirely from the immediate aftermath of the crash. It's news coverage but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. For an event to be considered notable enough for inclusion there needs to have been a longer-term impact than "helicopter crashed, people died" news coverage. The naming of a locomotive (12 years later) isn't the sort of lasting impact that substantiates a pass per WP:EFFECT as far as I'm concerned. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In depth coverage from The BBC, The Scotsman, and the London Evening Standard? Clearly passes wp:N Neonchameleon (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous sources show notability - not just a standard crash incident. Bazonka (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes as notable based on coverage and the posthumous dedication to Lewis. There is a need to have articles about female fatalities in the services and notable female servicemen in general. Smirkybec (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HJ Mitchell et al. GNG is clearly met. Also, one of the victims (whose name redirects to the article in question) has had a locomotive named in her honour; further evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 *'''Delete''' - as the spokesperson said - ''"as far as we are aware, there is no issue of safety with the Lynx or indication about defects which could be proven in other aircraft"''. No impact on the industry or even that line of aircraft in the context of that service. Tragic, but it fails [[WP:EVENT]]. '''[[User:Stalwart111|<span style="color:#00308F">St<span style="color:#ED1C24">★</span>lwart</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Stalwart111|<span style="color:#32CD32">1</span><span style="color:#228B22">1</span><span style="color:#006600">1</span>]]</sup>''' 07:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''. Clearly notable, as the nominator would have seen had they done due diligence and Googled it. And even if that weren't so, the Royal Navy's first loss of a female pilot (an aspect which generated significant media attention, again, due diligence...) is clearly significant. It's nominations like these that give the deletion process a bad name. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 11:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
+::[[WP:BEFORE]] is important, but the [[WP:BURDEN]] is on the article creator. The coverage in this instance is almost entirely from the immediate aftermath of the crash. It's news coverage but Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTNEWS|not a newspaper]]. For an event to be considered notable enough for inclusion there needs to have been a longer-term impact than "helicopter crashed, people died" news coverage. The naming of a locomotive (12 years later) isn't the sort of lasting impact that substantiates a pass per [[WP:EFFECT]] as far as I'm concerned. '''[[User:Stalwart111|<span style="color:#00308F">St<span style="color:#ED1C24">★</span>lwart</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Stalwart111|<span style="color:#32CD32">1</span><span style="color:#228B22">1</span><span style="color:#006600">1</span>]]</sup>''' 13:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''' In depth coverage from The BBC, The Scotsman, and the London Evening Standard?  Clearly passes [[wp:N]] [[User:Neonchameleon|Neonchameleon]] ([[User talk:Neonchameleon|talk]]) 11:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
+::And clearly fails [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. '''[[User:Stalwart111|<span style="color:#00308F">St<span style="color:#ED1C24">★</span>lwart</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Stalwart111|<span style="color:#32CD32">1</span><span style="color:#228B22">1</span><span style="color:#006600">1</span>]]</sup>''' 13:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''' Numerous sources show notability - not just a standard crash incident. [[User:Bazonka|Bazonka]] ([[User talk:Bazonka|talk]]) 11:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''' Clearly passes as notable based on coverage and the posthumous dedication to Lewis. There is a need to have articles about female fatalities in the services and notable female servicemen in general. [[User:Smirkybec|Smirkybec]] ([[User talk:Smirkybec|talk]]) 11:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)