Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian C-130 Hercules accident: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:24, 18 March 2012

Norwegian C-130 Hercules accident

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

Not notable per WP:AIRCRASH. Nobody notable on board which is a criteria for military crashes. ...William 21:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-For one thing, I don't see that there is a criteria for military crashes about notable persons on board. Besides, I think it would be a shame not to have an article about this crash, as this is a very unusual event, and no other known website keep track of incidents like this. Oz1sej (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a database of aviation accidents. And WP:AIRCRASH, which is the relevant WP:ALPHABETSOUP for this, states that for military aircraft, either a significant change in procedures or a Wikinotable (bluelinked) person on board is indicitative of notability (barring extensive and long-lasting coverage). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 16:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 21:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ...William 21:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 21:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per WP:NOTNEWS. Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, military 'copter crashes, not poissibly notable at this stage. Speciate (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Hercules fixed-wing aircraft is not a 'copter. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, does not make the inclusion criteria as per WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:AIRCRASH, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Can be covered in List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present), no need for redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A highly notable accident and has been the top headline in Norway and Sweden for 2 days. Fatal aircraft accidents in Scandinavia are quite rare. The 5 killed were all military officers. A very large-scale search effort is going on in a difficult terrain (the aircraft appears to have crashed on top of Sweden's highest mountain) and will probably last a long time. Nanobear (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This story has been front page news for 2 straight days in Sweden and Norway, there is a huge search and rescue operation going on and this accident will be refered to in the future. Its been refered on most global television channels and has been the top headline in all of Scandinavia for 2 days straight. This accident has generated thousands of articles on national media in Norway and Sweden aswell as a notable amount of coverage on international media. Mcduck (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the outcome is merge, a redirect to List of C-130 Hercules crashes would be the best thing. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the first major crash for this aircraft and could lead to further consequences, for the time being I would say maintain it and see how things develop. Sierra-Alfa-Mike (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major story in Scandinavia. Per WP:GNG also.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a story that has evolved much since the first delete !votes.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not news and most military accidents are not really notable unless they kill someone important or hit something important. The threshold level for a stand-alone article has to be far higher for military accidents then if it was a civilian airliner. No reason why it should not be included in List of C-130 Hercules crashes and the type article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think the tallest mountain in Sweden is "something important"? That is a landmark if I ever saw one. And they seem to have hit it since the plane exploded. Very rarely do planes like these explode midair. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A mountain is not what I meant I really meant important buildings or structures. Military aircraft fly lower and sometimes faster than civil aircraft, they dont generally fly airways where they can be watched and warned. That said the C-130J is a new aircraft with modern avionics so it is designed not to hit things but when the aircraft was flying only a few thousand feet above the height of the mountain it should have missed it!. Nobody is saying it is not a tragic and sad accident and our thoughts are with the friends and relatives of the five lost aviators. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly passes WP:GNG, and doesn't fails WP:NOTNEWS in my opinion. Major event in Scandinavia. Also think that this deletion-discussion should have been delayed a little, per WP:RAPID, as the article already have evolved a lot since nomination, and when the deletion discussion ends in 6 days there will probably be a completely different article. The best thing would be to nominate this article in 14 days or a month, when the article have evolved even more and evolved away from a news story to a encyclopedic article. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, merely another case of CFIT, aircraft not notable (and NOT the first crash of the type), add to List of C-130 Hercules crashes and re-direct.Petebutt (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be the first crash of the Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules variant, that was introduced in 1999. Nanobear (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reports on the found debree says they are spread over a wide area which may be a result of something that happened in the air. Time will show if the accident is notable or not. --Jpfagerback (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a controlled flight into ground. No techincal or mechanical issue with the plane. According to Norwegian newspapers they may have flown tactical. I don't have enough experience with the requirements of en:WP to vote for delete or keep. Just wanted to put my 2 cents into the mix. --Jpfagerback (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. Tagremover (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major event in Norway and Sweden with extensive news coverage and will go into history books because of the spectacular crash site Sweden's highest montain Kebnekaise. Julius Agrippa (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those arguing "major story - clearly notable" should mind the unliklihood of WP:PERSISTENCE being met. Even a widely-spread "news burst" does not the WP:GNG automatically meet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep J 1982 (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Major event in Sweden.[reply]
Keep. The incident is of considerable significance more than being a "mere" aircrash. It's indeed a major event in both Sweden and in Norway. __meco (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a presumably fatal (since body parts have been found) crash into the highest peak in Sweden (which the vast majority of Scandinavians know by name) by a Norwegian military aircraft. Its on the front page of every Scandinavian news organisation I have checked, From Denmark to Finland, and have been so for days. Sertmann (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Funny how freak accidents with 1-2 fatalities in the US are kept: 2002 Tampa plane crash (2 dead, B-class article!) and 2010 Austin suicide attack (1 dead), yet the first fatal crash of the newest version of the world's most popular tactical airlifter doesn't qualify. I can't find the offical policy, but I am wondering if US events are inherently more notable? Is it okay that we don't cover the Chinese citizens crashing into buildings just because the Chinese newspapers doesn't report on it, because they aren't reminded of 9/11? --Ysangkok (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first loss of a C-130J the RAF lost one in Iraq (ZH876). MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on that WP:OTHERSTUFF because they are criminal acts, not accidents. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per Mentoz86. Most of the arguments here have a core of solid reasoning, but also seem to depend to some extent on speculation, because this is such a new and rapidly-changing topic. Better to make a call on deletion when things have settled out more. — Ipoellet (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other millitary aircraft crashes has been kept (2008 San Diego F/A-18 crash etc.), so why not this aswell LOLfan18 (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the existence of the article List of C-130 Hercules crashes, somone will know what to do. We don't have articles about every Chinese or U.S. military aircrash. We Norwegians think that everything we do is so special. If we are proven wrong, we will eventually get over it. This accident is a dime a dozen in the rest of the world. --Gerrymanders (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is quite offensive. Do you think anyone is proud of this crash?. No, not every crash with a plane has a separate article on Wikipedia. But when a crash like this one happens (these kind of crashes are very rare in scandinavia) it is notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not wikipedia for Scandinavia. With the world as a backdrop, nothing in the article indicates that the crash is notable. "Proud"? I'd venture a guess that soldiers/combatants who oppose Norway in Afghanistan, have a less sentimental feeling about the accident then you might. In addition, this wikipedia is not exclusively for those sympathetic to NATO/ISAF. Military airplane crews die every day. Nothing notable yet about this crew that died in bad weather. --Gerrymanders (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK so we should delete this article because combatants in Afghanistan are potentially angry at Norway and doesnt care about the death of five people? hmmm. No this is not Wikipedia Scandinavia, it is a Wikipedia were articles are made on notable subjects. A crash which is very rare in Scandinavia is notable and should be included. No matter what some Afghans or Americans thinks.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a very rare bicycle accident on Main Street in Hicksville, Alaska outside building/property number 1212, in bad weather. I am not expecting an article about that. Military aircraft/crews test themselves in adverse conditions/bad weather. Nothing notable about that. That there are few military aircraft in Scandinavia (even when counting the ones holed up in Afghanistan or going to/coming from there), does not make this crash notable. It wasn't even a combat mission (which might have added some notability). This crash is not a notable subject, according to the text in the article and the text in this discussion. --183.88.34.4 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note a combat loss would actually make it less notable. MilborneOne (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, reevaluate after 14 days/a month. The reason for this crash is still very much up in the air (no pun intended), it has been established as a major event during a NATO exercise, and most assuredly has the attention of the entirety of Scandinavia. - Kenneaal (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 ::::I had a very rare bicycle accident on Main Street in Hicksville, Alaska outside building/property number 1212, in bad weather. I am not expecting an article about that. Military aircraft/crews test themselves in adverse conditions/bad weather. Nothing notable about that. That there are few military aircraft in Scandinavia (even when counting the ones holed up in Afghanistan or going to/coming from there), does not make this crash notable. It wasn't even a combat mission (which might have added some notability). This crash is not a notable subject, according to the text in the article and the text in this discussion. --[[Special:Contributions/183.88.34.4|183.88.34.4]] ([[User talk:183.88.34.4|talk]]) 01:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 :::::Just to note a combat loss would actually make it less notable. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 09:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
+*Strong '''Keep''', reevaluate after 14 days/a month. The reason for this crash is still very much up in the air (no pun intended), it has been established as a major event during a NATO exercise, and most assuredly has the attention of the entirety of Scandinavia. - [[User:Kenneaal|Kenneaal]] ([[User talk:Kenneaal|talk]]) 11:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)