Jump to content

Talk:2020 Calabasas helicopter crash/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2020

Data from Flightradar24 appears to show the helicopter rising abruptly before crashing.[7]

[7] should be changed to this: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/n72ex#23a8271e It shows the path and altitude of the helicopter. PacificPianoMan (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2020

John Altobelli has also died. PacificPianoMan (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for constantly submitting, Christina Mauser, Harbor Day coach was on the flight according to her husband, and John Antobelli is the OCC coach PacificPianoMan (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@PacificPianoMan: Do you have a reliable published source for that? — MarkH21talk 23:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

KTLA5 TV, both information was received at the same time I posted these edits. I am in the PDT time zone, if that is helpful. PacificPianoMan (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Do they have a published version online? We need to have a verifiable version. — MarkH21talk 00:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done by somweone. WWGB (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2020

Among those who died include Kobe and his 13 year old daughter, Gianna 172.58.188.89 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

That has been in the article for a while.Tvx1 02:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2020

Please add to the list of victims: Christine Mauser who was an assistant coach at the Harbor Day School where Bryant’s older daughter attended. 45.37.54.185 (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done by someoone. WWGB (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Victims of the helicopter crash

All 9 of the victims have been identified. Can this information be included? [1] MikaelaArsenault (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)MikaelaArsenault

 Done. WWGB (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)MikaelaArsenault

https://abc7.com/calabasas-helicopter-crash-what-we-know-about-the-victims/5881549/

Here are the list of Victims names that have been released in relation to Kobe Bryant's death.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

Add under the investigation section that 3 more corpses were identified as pilot Ara Zobayan, Sarah Chester, and baseball coach John Altobelli but five more ids are still pending [2] 194.247.60.2 (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, unnecessary and insensitive. WWGB (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

Can someone remove the Category:Filmed accidental deaths category? There is no known film of this accident. 216.163.247.4 (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 216.163.247.4 (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Bohbye (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Move

NO ACTION
Speedy close. There is no deadline. All of the proposed helicopter crash article already titles redirect here. Let's have one discussion at a time. The merge discussion is getting unnecessarily complicated by having both of these discussions ongoing. Surachit (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible names to move this to: 2020 Calabasas Sikorsky S-76B crash, 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, 2020 Calabasas crash or perhaps Kobe Bryant helicopter crash. ~ HAL333 22:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That's even worse. The death is more notable than the crash itself. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
5 people died. There are wikipedia articles over random plane crashes much less notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HAL333 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
It's only been an hour as well so of course it seems so far that the crash itself isn't as notable. But so far the death is notable and the crash will be notable for the death of Bryant and the aftermath. HC7Leave me a message! 21:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Strongly agree, this is not just about Kobe, five people died. See 2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash and John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash --François Calvaresi (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
See also 2018 Leicester helicopter crash
 Comment: The only reason the crash is being covered as it is is because Kobe died in it. CatcherStorm talk 21:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: The crash would have been covered anyways, its just national headlines because Kobe died. It's Kobe's personal copter so it would have been covered quite a bit even if no one died and it was just the crash. HC7Leave me a message! 21:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Note that I said "as it is". The media will be heavily covering the crash for a long foreseeable future, this isn't just another helicopter crash. Of course the media are going to cover a helicopter crash, but they will be covering it for a long time to come since Kobe died as a result. CatcherStorm talk 21:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:SNOW does not apply here. There are multiple people here opposing and supporting a merger. CatcherStorm talk 21:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Strongly agree per François Calvaresi - Premeditated (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose move, as the current title is immediately recognizable, no benefit to obfuscating at this point in time. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment, the title currently says "Death of Kobe Bryant" but the infobox says "Deaths: 5"; that's pretty confusing, I think it should either be included in the article that 4 others died or the title changed. Bluecrab2 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment Someone already created an article for the crash titled 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel like that is too wordy. ~ HAL333 22:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Strongly agree, see 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash. We don't call it "The Death of Payne Stewart" Tntad (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
But what about John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash? ~ HAL333 22:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Death of Aaliyah and Death of Stevie Ray Vaughan would also like a word. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Per established precedent, a general aviation aircraft accident which involves a wikinotable person is capable of sustaining a stand-alone article. Once I was able to access Wikipedia after tonight's technical difficulties, I created such an article. I'm trying to improve it and all I get is edit conflicts, misformed redirects and redirects. Other editors agree with me that the article should exist, so please let me and others get on with polishing it into shape. Mjroots (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I do agree with you this article should exist, and this *is* the article, because it was created first - and per the examples I listed above, it's not unusual on Wikipedia for a famous person to die in an accident, and have the article be titled after them, regardless of other fatalities. If you want it called something else, that's for an RM, not redirecting this to a page created after. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Just wait, this article will soon be moved to one of the several aviation incident type articles already proposed. We don not need any more forking. This article was created before the other, so please add to this one for now. ~ HAL333 22:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
        • No, the article I created is the one that should exist. The only reason it was created later is because I couldn't get access to Wikipedia due to issues publicised elsewhere affecting Europe. Mjroots (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose merge This was merged with the 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash. Kobe's death was the news story of the day and will be for the rest of the month, at the minimum. Unexpected death and one of the most notable basketball players of all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennsylvania2 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Which is why it should be dealt with in a properly developed section in his article.Tvx1 22:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2020

include examples of players that performed on-field tributes (zadarius smith, davante adams) Thezozodemon (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Flightradar24

I've removed the sentence about Flightradar24 data. When it was removed, it said the site "appears" to show an abrupt climb; previously, the claim was not qualified. This is original research, because it is an interpretation of a primary source, namely, the flight data on the site. An interpretation of the data published in a reliable secondary source would be fine, although I think, in the interest of reliability, a quotation from a specialist would be better than, say, a single sentence in a news article. Roches (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree. Keeping an eye out. — MarkH21talk 03:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Data would suggest VFR flight into IMC conditions, which lead to a controlled flight into terrain (CFIT). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.33.60.244 (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a statement by Trump about death of Kobe Bryant

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1221582230008619016 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1221582230990073856 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A315:623B:5180:70E1:B9BC:AA44:7AEF (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

We already have one of his statements. ~ HAL333 00:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

But this one is longer and more specific than saying "terrible news". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A315:623B:5180:70E1:B9BC:AA44:7AEF (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason Obama's comment has been given precedence over Trump's? While both POV's are paying respect, I do believe a current president's statement should be ahead of any and all former Presidents. Like the guy or not, he is the sitting President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.143.0.181 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Trump's statement is a redundancy, that's why. He literally plagiarized Obama's tweet. Yikes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.83.184.15 (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

To the above poster -- Umm no. Trump's tweet was sent out more than a hour before Obama's tweet was sent out. Trump was 3:48 pm, Obama was at 4:56 pm. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:80C6:5207:C6A8:A4D (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Not that it matters either way, where are you getting those times from? I see 3:54 and 1:56 for the times. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Not even a helicopter crash can be saved from trump derangement syndrome. Portillo (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Please consider helping add this topic to the S-76 Page

Please consider helping add this topic correctly to the S-76 article. Looking at the history of that page, supporters of the helicopter appear to be trying to bury the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.216.114 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I'll look into it in a bit. ~ HAL333 02:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I would actually say that data had it rising steadily ~ 1,000 feet per minute. Thirty seconds from the crash, it’s vertical speed dropped to -3500 feet per minute for a vertical acceleration of -300 feet/minute/second. Promptly after, a spike in the data tells me that the pilot attempted to slow the descent as it quickly rose to -2,000 feet per minute in about five seconds before going down again to -5,000 feet per minute. Moonlandingwasahoax (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The data I took from flightradar24.com was that the aircraft was moving vertically at about 1,000 feet per minute for ~ 30 seconds. Over the next 15, it dropped to -3,500 feet per minute. The data then tells me that the pilot attempted to pull up again as it spiked to -2,000 feet per minute before plummeting back down to -5,000 feet per minute seconds before the crash. Moonlandingwasahoax (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

We should update the flight information as flightradar24.com posted the Final Minute of Flight Data. It did indeed drop to -4000 fps but then rose to -2000 fps sharply. Supposably, the pilot attempted to either pull up or slow the descent. Shortly after, the helicopter dropped back down to -5000 fps (approx. 60 mph.) Moonlandingwasahoax (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Reduce long quotations

The athletes and politicians sections are almost entirely paragraph-long quotations. Regardless of moving or merging, can this part at least be resolved either by removing quotations or chopping them down significantly to the relevant parts? Kingsif (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I added the particularly long bill clinton one which I only quoted in full for completeness. Feel free to reduce it as you see fit. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Quotations should be shaved down or removed altogether. I know everyone's all emotional right now and that's where most of the edits therein are coming from, but at the end of the day Wikipedia is not an obituary. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 04:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the Reactions section is way too long, and filled with too many unnecessary (and unnecessarily-long) quotes. See WP:QUOTEFARM. Levivich 15:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting update to "In the news" text

On the Wikipedia home page, the In the news section states:

American former basketball player '''[[Kobe Bryant]]''' ''(pictured)'', his daughter Gianna, and seven others die in a helicopter crash near [[Los Angeles]].

Could we add a link to the Death of Kobe Bryant article like this?:

American former basketball player '''[[Kobe Bryant]]''' ''(pictured)'', his daughter Gianna, and seven others [[Death of Kobe Byrant|die in a helicopter crash]] near [[Los Angeles]].

If I've posted this in the wrong place, please direct me to the correct place. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: @Benica11: Thanks! I have moved the request to the In the news errors page. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Precedents

In my opinion, as time goes by, this article should evolve into an article about the detailed circumstances of the helicopter crash. Here are four articles about helicopter crashes that killed celebrities that may serve as models, although none of these articles are perfect.

Another minor celebrity who died in a helicopter crash was Jane Dornacker. Although there is no Wikipedia article about that crash, perhaps we should have one. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I know our views differ here Jim, but it appears the we already do have an article on the crash that killed Dornacker. You already linked it. She's BLP1E, and that article is pretty much about the crash. John from Idegon (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • John from Idegon, it cannot be BLP1E since she has been dead for 34 years. It is also not BIO1E because she was very well known as a rock and roll performer and radio personality in the San Francisco Bay Area for many years before her death. She also had a role in a major movie. The observation that the article ought to be expanded and improved does not affect her notability, and we ought to have a biography of her even if she was still alive and had been retired the last 34 years instead of dead. She was a very impressive figure who died too young. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Those articles exist due to meeting the requirements of WP:SUSTAINED --ZimZalaBim talk 04:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Other examples: 2018 Leicester helicopter crash (where the article Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha has a link from the 'Death' section) and (though not a helicopter crash) 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash (redirect destination for Death of Payne Stewart, and again it is the main article link from the 'Death' section at Payne Stewart). Carcharoth (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Another recent comparator could be 2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash, which killed the footballer Emiliano Sala (and a pilot who isn't notable enough for his own article). Robofish (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge into Kobe Bryant?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Not merged. After almost 24 hours of discussion on this point, it is clear that consensus is currently against the merge proposal, and a positive consensus in favour of a merge seems unlikely to materialise. I'm also satisfied with the policy grounding of those opposing the merge, as the article is well sourced and there is ample precedent for articles of this nature. So I am closing this now. If the situation appears different in a few months time, when this is out of the news, people can reevaluate. But for now the article is kept. — Amakuru (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Does this really need a separate article? Simeon (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support merge: Deaths of celebrities do not deserve a separate article. His death was part of a helicopter crash and so the main article will be the helicopter crash. His death section can redirect to the page of the helicopter crash.
  • Support merge: I agree, this doesn’t need its own article as most celebrity deaths don’t. — MarkH21talk 21:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:BOLDly making a redirect. His death is not really independently notable. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Bryant was very notable and this crash included others than just him. There will likely be an investigation into this tragedy too. It will get bogged down in his article. I'd say it its own event not just his death. The article also meets WP:GNG. HC7Leave me a message! 21:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
If so many unusual details emerge from the investigation that the section becomes cumbersome, then split it off into its own article. There may not be a need for more than two or three paragraphs in the future, and there isn’t a need for a separate article with the information available right now. — MarkH21talk 21:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree with merge, in part. This incident may be notable regarding the accident only. For example, if you search for "Death of Ted Stevens", you are redirected to 2010 Alaska DHC-3 Otter crash. In the latter case, there also 5 deaths, including one famous person. I would support an article about the crash, but not his death.Juneau Mike (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
That crash had three notable people involved in total, so there’s no case for leaving it within a single existing article unlike this accident. — MarkH21talk 21:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Plenty of aviation accidents where only one notable person died are their own articles. See: Death of Stevie Ray Vaughan and Death of Aaliyah, among others. ~ HAL333 23:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
What made Diana's crash notable was the conspiracy theories and such around it. Also, she was a princess... EvergreenFir (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose – Definitely notable. The internet crashed. Even ignoring the helicopter, the reaction alone is notable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps once RS coverage of the reaction as a separate cultural phenomenon emerges. It’s too soon at the moment to need to split the section off. — MarkH21talk 21:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Internet crashed? They need to keep up with the growth rate of population, and growth rate of users. Internet should update their servers - nothing to do with wikipedia. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose, see Death of David Bowie. Certain celebrity deaths are notable enough for their own article. CatcherStorm talk 21:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Only when RS coverage of the reaction as a separate cultural phenomenon emerges. There’s no current need to split the section off. — MarkH21talk 21:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Along with my previous statement I think that it should be renamed to 2020 Calabasas Helicopter Crash, similar to what Juneau Mike said.HC7Leave me a message! 21:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Apparently it's not the circumstances around his death that are notable; rather, it is the fact that he died. However, Bryant is very notable, and considering that more major details about his death are being reported minute-by-minute, and the fact that multiple memorials and tributes to him will probably be held, I cannot see a reason for why this should be merged into the main article--if there is a consensus for a merge, it will be far too long for that by the time that it is merged. | abequinnfourteen 21:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Abequinn14: At least as far as I am aware, each and every notable person that has died till now, has died for fact. Also: WP:NOTNEWS is exactly for incidents like this. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree per MarkH21. The helicopter crash is currently only notable for Bryant's death, which could be included in Kobe_Bryant#Death. With respect to the comparison to 2010 Alaska DHC-3 Otter crash, this flight also carried at least three notable people, two of whom did not die. userdude 21:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
That argument had been debunked. See: Death of Stevie Ray Vaughan and Death of Aaliyah, among others. ~ HAL333 23:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Lots of celebrities have died prematurely but not each one has its own article. The circumstances of the crash will dictate the notability of this incident, not just the fact that Kobe died. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I guarantee that this will soon grow to several paragraphs in length, nothing to be concerned of. ~ HAL333 23:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
That argument has been debunked even before you thought of it. See: WP:CRYSTAL. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge at this time. Allow the many updates about the crash that will follow in the next week or so to be handled here. Once the flow of new content ebbs, re-raise the question. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: Agreed, once more information comes out it would be better to re-discuss the merger. HC7Leave me a message! 21:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
With all due respect to the other three casualties, every source I've read so far has focused only on Kobe and his daughter. They're the ones that make the crash notable to begin with. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge: But merge the article with both Kobe Bryant and 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weakly support merge What fresh hell awaits me this time...a separate article should only be considered when more information comes out. For now, keep it in the main article. We REALLY need a better system for this. ShadowCyclone talk 22:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • support merge for now: wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. A celebrity died - obviously it is going to be covered in news by reliable sources. To have a seperate article, the death should have WP:SUSTAINED coverage over the time. Till then, let the content be in his own article. Internet broke? Too bad. Internet should update their servers. Princess Diana's death still gets significant coverage. I know who David Bowie was, and honestly speaking I never even heard of Bryant till I saw his name in wikipedia's "in the news". Zero coverage in Indian news. Thats 18% of the world population unaware of his death, or even his existence. No mention in Irish news either. Other stuff exists: stop comparing, and move on. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. Indian news covered this three hours ago: [1] and Irish news 3 hours ago as well.[2] That's another 18% of the world aware of his death. Please don't back up your argument with lies. ~ HAL333 23:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
      • No. They only published it, it is not automatically visible anywhere, unless one searches for it. Not on news TV channel either. Thats still 18% of the world population unaware of his death, or even his existence. Ireland's population is a minuscule fraction. I will give you that. And reputation of e-copy of TOI is similar to tabloids. It publishes anything and everything in the hopes of getting visitors. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/nba-legend-kobe-bryant-dies-in-helicopter-crash-report/articleshow/73645217.cms
  2. ^ https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/american-sports/legendary-nba-star-kobe-bryant-41-and-teenage-daughter-killed-in-helicopter-accident-38896907.html
  3. ^ https://www.indiatvnews.com/sports/other-basketball-legend-kobe-bryant-killed-in-helicopter-crash-in-california-583305
That wasn’t a merge. That article was verbatim copied from here and then turned back into a redirect. — MarkH21talk 22:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The merge went into the other direction. This article is still "Death of Kobe Bryant".Tvx1 22:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge Per WP:N No evidence that this event is independently notable at this moment. His daughter was not independently notable either. No evidence of notability of the other three occupants.Tvx1 22:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge A multi fatality crash involving a celebrity is independently notable, especially in aviation. We've established such articles for celebrities like Aaliyah and Samantha Smith. Worth its own article. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no article for the death of Samantha Smith, and the Death of Aaliyah article delves deeply into lawsuits, causes of the crash and many other factors that held notability for years after the fact. It was enough relevant information that a separate article was warranted. However, we have no idea what happened here. Creating an article this early would be premature. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect on Samantha Smith. (Bar Harbor Airlines Flight 1808) DrewieStewie (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash article exists, and is pretty similar in scope to this one. 23:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Hemiauchenia (talk)
  • Strong support for merge: Don't rush to create articles. This article was created prematurely. There is a reason death articles get created, and that is because there is so much to say about the deaths that a separate article is necessary. In this case, a death article was perhaps a bit enthousiastically made the very day it happened. We don't even have all the information yet! Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose if the title changed to something more general about the main event, which is the helicopter crash. Support if the title is only Kobe's death.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge as per the standard set with previous similar incidents. I do think it's a good idea to change the title to be more general in agreement with SharabSalam above, but I think it should be separate either way. Jokullmusic 22:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no such standard. In some cases there is an article, in some there isn't. Each case is judged individually bases on notability.Tvx1 22:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge Per WP:NOTNEWS. The event is part of his biography, and there might only be something notable about the event itself if something atypical happens in the aftermath. But right now, mere hours since it happened, it is not encyclopedic of itself. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge Per above points. A completely different article is not neccesary for one incident, could easily tag along with main article of Kobe Bryant Hummerrocket (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose merge This was merged with the 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash. Kobe's death was the news story of the day and will be for the rest of the month, at the minimum. Unexpected death and one of the most notable basketball players of all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennsylvania2 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Merge The chopper crash itself is not notable, was a one-off thing, and means little save for the occupant. Nothing weird or extraordinary appears to have caused the crash. Best to leave it with the original article- Veryproicelandic (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Obviously this is a "one-off thing." Should he die twice to make this notable? Come on. ~ HAL333 23:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Veryproicelandic's wording was not exactly appropriate regarding the departed. To establish notability, subject's death need to have a WP:SUSTAINED coverage. What we are having is news-bursts, and wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge. Needs a new title for sure, but this is going to be a notable crash. It's now reported there were 9 fatalities instead of 5. And Kobe Bryant was an iconic player. All that is a perfect storm of a notable helicopter crash, especially when compared to others on Wikipedia. I want to start some other requests for a move of those above "Death of" articles, but don't know if it wouldn't be rude. --Quiz shows 22:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support MergeIf there was more than one notable death in this crash like that Leicester crash in 2018, then yeah it may deserve its own article based on the name of the crash but sinde Kobe was the ony notable death in this crash, it doesn't desrve its own article--27.123.139.134 (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? Only one notable person died in the helicopter crash of Stevie Ray Vaughan (Death of Stevie Ray Vaughan), yet that has its own page. Does his death not deserve its own article? What about Death of Aaliyah? Bit of a hole in your statement there. ~ HAL333 22:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Musician are on a different level to sport stars, Aaliyah's death was shocking, so was Stevie Ray's.. when was the last time we gave the death of an athlete their own article? unless more news pops out regarding this like for those 2 musicians you mentioned, it still doesn't qualify--27.123.139.134 (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@HAL333: Great example, the title of the article you linked is John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash hence focusing on the crash which took the life of JFK Jr. This article is not about the crash, but about the death of Kobe Bryant including reaction and soon memorials. Wikipedia has many articles about helicopter crashes which famous individuals are not involved. There are many sources currently speculating or releasing technical details involving the crash which would be relevant to the 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash article, but not the death of Kobe. Both article are notable, but the crash holds its own weight. There should be article on the Death of Kobe only if there is also an article on the crash itself. Valoem talk contrib 23:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I tried to change the title to one of the ones proposed below to make it less focused on Kobe, but that RFC was shut down. Ill try to reopen it after this. ~ HAL333 23:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
None of which justifies a separate article on dealing only with his death. It can be more than adequately be covered in his own article.Tvx1 00:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge as proposed - Bryant was a world renown celebrity. Nine people died in this crash. Needs a better title but this is a notable tragedy and will be for many years to come. CBS527Talk 23:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - Given his level of success and fame, and the significance of the event's aftermath, I can see why some users above have made comparisons to the JFK Jr crash, among others. Should definitely have its own article, though perhaps not with this title. Skycycle (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge With both Bryant's and the crash article; I would oppose if the crash didn't have an article, but since it does this is just a duplicate but with a title that doesn't reference the rest of the info on the crash that is included anyway. Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:FORK. A "death of" article should only be considered when the volume of encyclopedic information sourcable to reliable secondary sources begins to be a WP:WEIGHT issue in the biographical article. IT HAPPENED TODAY. THERE ARE NO SECONDARY SOURCES. News accounts are primary. John from Idegon (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Strongly oppose merge but a new title is necessary: Actually this is a very unique and significant incident and may have great repurcussions. Here we can develop further information not necessarily appropriate in the Kobe Bryant Personal life section. But I am objecting to the title. This was not just Kobe Bryant's death but many others as well. I would suggest for example Kobe Bryant helicopter crash or something along that line. Each victim also deserves a paragraph as well. werldwayd (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I can get behind Kobe Bryant helicopter crash which is supported by COMMONNAME. We should close this discussion as no consensus and start a move discussion to Kobe Bryant helicopter crash. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion has been open for two hours. There's no rush to close the discussion so quickly. — MarkH21talk 23:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Don't mistake the non-existence of past move/merge discussions on other articles for a general consensus. There's also not much of an argument in comparing articles. Just because something else exists doesn't mean that it should nor that this should. — MarkH21talk 23:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
@MarkH21: Nine people have died in this helicopter crash, it is clearly independently notable as many other helicopter crashes with casualties not involving famous people also have articles. I'm not sure what your logic is if notability guidelines can't be applied consistently. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Huh? I'm pointing out that the also exist without opposition shouldn't mean anything. Whether notability guidelines, WP:CONTENTFORK, or WP:OVERLAP apply to this individual article is separate. — MarkH21talk 00:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
"Exist without oppositon" is poor phrasing on my part for which I apologise. What I mean is that the incidient qualifies for the standards of notability as they are currently applied by the community. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
See WP:Crystall.Tvx1 00:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose The accident is currently under unknown/unusual circumstances. A massive investigation will soon follow, and thus warrants a separate article. The fact that nine people died, that alone warrants a separate article. This should NOT be merged. In addition to that, the response from the President, former presidents, and other significant figures will have to be documented. 2600:6C5E:137F:E5B0:F448:FC39:A369:654E (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The existence of an investigation does not in itself justify an article.Tvx1 00:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment A lot is still unclear, I think we should wait a few days (or weeks) until we know a bit more. Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 00:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment I would most likely agree with this option, however there isn't enough information on the 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash, and that could possibly stay merged with the Death of Kobe Bryant article. TwinTurbo (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with many others that the title of this is wrong at it should be about the incident. Hopefully the closer of this will take into account the speedly closed move request below. AIRcorn (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Change title The crash itself is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. However, other people died in the crash too, and it should be titled something along the lines of "2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash" to reflect that. Canuck89 (Converse with me) 01:08, January 27, 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Based on the level of coverage already received and likely to continue, I think this event likely passes the criteria for WP:EVENT. That said, at the moment there isn't enough material to justify the WP:FORK from the main article. So I would go ahead and merge this entirely into the main article and turn this into a redirect until such time as it gets big enough to justify a stand alone article. My guess is that we will get there. But for now there's just not enough to justify the separate page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge but support renameThis event is notable as a helicopter crash that killed 9 people, not because of Kobe Bryant. The article should be called "Calabasas helicopter crash". To call this article "Death of Kobe Bryant" is an insult to the other people who died. Narayansg (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This article is already decently sized at almost 20,000 bytes and will continue to grow. Even now, I think its size is too cumbersome to add into the main biographical article. One can only imagine what it'll be like in a few days. ~ HAL333 01:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge – There isn't enough content to write about this event to justify WP:SPLITing it off the main article (Kobe Bryant). It may be that at some point in the future, the "Death" section of Kobe Bryant will get so long as to justify a SPLIT; we're not there yet. Levivich 02:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep but possibly rename - Can already tell this is going to be of long-lasting importance both as the death of a major athlete and as an aviation disaster. Could possibly be renamed, however, as eight other people died, including his daughter. Even as a general article on the crash, however, this should be of long-term relevance. Toa Nidhiki05 02:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge, rename, keep "Death of Kobe Bryant" and other suggested names as redirects There is sufficient info about the crash, and as a community, we traditionally use a common name for aviation and railroad incidents. --Enos733 (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge what's the rush? Wait and see how the article develops over the next few weeks and then we can have this discussion again if necessary. Lepricavark (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This isn’t just another celebrity death honestly. I’m seeing similarities between Kobe’s death to Michael Jackson’s death just with the high number of tributes even outside of basketball. We also should keep the current name.--Rockchalk717 02:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge and also rename to 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash. College baseball coach John Altobelli, his wife, and daughter, were also killed, and we have a new article about him. It would be best not to refer to this as "the Kobe Bryant crash". Yoninah (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge & Support Rename There is enough information about the event that warrants its own article but it should be renamed as others died and it's importance to aviation history. 2604:6000:6700:F00:3821:B66F:D37F:D2E8 (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge and rename to "2020 Calabasas helicopter crash" per above. I don't think a rename to the specific build of the plane would be useful and would be probably unknown and hard to search for most readers. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 03:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - Major news sources such as CNN are continuosly giving updates on the death of Kobe Bryant. He was just 41 years old prior to the unprecedented death and the helicopter accident is very much notable. The article itself is well written and would be updated in coming days. The videos regarding the helicopter crash have become viral and the death of this personality is very much important. It is better to have a separate article as he was one of the NBA legends. Abishe (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - This is clearly an extremely unusual case of a celebrity's life taken in their youth by a freak accident, similar to Princess Diana but on a lesser scale. The reaction should also be enough. WakandaForever188 (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: There is a lot of information that will come out as a result and that information will become bloated on the main Kobe Bryant article. Also considering the constant media attention, I think it garners enough notability for its own article. If the Lynyrd Skynyrd plane crash can have its own article, there is no reason why this can't. Dpm12 (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge: Right now, it's not that long of an article as the story is still developing, maybe if it get's big it can branch into a seperate article, but for now, merge it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5900:46D:5904:57AE:EB9B:E839 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Oppose Due to WP:AIRCRASH Notability guideline. But the article really should be renamed to reflect the incident with the aircraft. However I believe that discussion was closed prematurely and should be reopened. Sawblade5 (talk to me | my wiki life) 03:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
That’s not a notability guideline, it’s a user essay. — MarkH21talk 03:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Either way it pertains to past discussions on rather to delete or merge articles pertaining to Aircraft incidents and should apply here. The article should stand on it's own for the crash especially when we get the information on all the victims and the cause of the accident from the investigations. It could use some clean up and maybe merge some of the content back into the Kobe Bryant article and have this focus more on the crash. Sawblade5 (talk to me | my wiki life) 04:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge:The helicopter crash would have been a notable event even without one of the greatest basketball players of all time being a victim. Also, Kobe's article was very long even before he died, and his death, spectacular though it was, was basically a sidebar to his short but eventful life.
  • Oppose merge:Roberto Clemente's plane crash received its own page with less overall fatalities. A 9 person helicopter crash would be significant on its own, regardless of the occupants. Kobe's death makes this a highly significant event, and the worldwide media coverage is a good indicator.
  • Strong Oppose merge: The crash itself is enough to warrant its own article. This shouldn't even be a discussion. CrispyCream27 (Talk) 05:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: These types of celebrity deaths receive their own articles all of the time. It should not change here, especially since this death is significant and received a lot of media attention. Swordman97 talk to me 05:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge: Although the main person focused on the crash is Kobe Bryant, the crash involes other people, and the information in the death article contains relatively irrelavant information to him.Can I Log In (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge: This title should redirect to the crash article. The content here merged into his own page. Although I recognize that most these proposals won't go anywhere till the story dies down. Hydromania (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge and rename to "2020 Calabasas helicopter crash" – his death doesn't warrant a stand alone article, the fact that he died along with 5 other people in a helicopter crash is the news that is meeting GNG and should have its own stand alone article. cookie monster (2020) 755 08:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Do not rename – I am slightly changing my feedback. I still oppose a merge, but it should stay at Death of Kobe Bryant in accordance with WP:CONSISTENCY with events like Death of Aliyah. cookie monster (2020) 755 20:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge and rename - quite suitable given his status and the impact it will have♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge, Oppose rename, Oppose split. First off, Bryant's death is a major event, and deserves its own article. The second reason is, that as the current article stays separate, there won't be a requirement to split off the crash event. -Mardus /talk 09:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge even if just by WP:SIZERULE (an official guideline) alone. There's already over 25kb of sourced relevant content and it would be way too much to merge into the over 260kb target page. This is becoming one of the most scrutinized helicopter crashes in modern history so there is no question of notability and passing GNG. Oakshade (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge Hugely significant and notable event. This tragic and unexpected event needs its on article due to the scale and notability of its occurence. Cindlevet (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge I oppose merging as this is an extremely notable & important event and this much information would clutter Kobe's page. Let his Wikipedia page be detailed about his life, and not his death.willydrachtalk —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. The crash itself is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. --IndexAccount (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Consensus seems to be extremely strong against a merge to the Bryant article. Can we please close this so we can get to discussing the page title, which there seems to be significantly less consensus on? Smartyllama (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The plane crash, and the death of Bryant and others, is clearly a notable event in its own right. Even if it wasn't, Bryant's article is more than long enough to justify spinning this out as a subarticle. Robofish (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support or rename article. I don't see why his death needs its own article. Generally, deaths get their own articles when it is a controversial or complicated one, neither of which applies here. Had he not died in a helicopter crash, I doubt his death would have gotten its own article. However, aircraft accidents do get their own articles all the time. I don't see why him being a part of it means that this article should be given a special name. If years go by and this incident ends up being known under a specific name in pop culture then fine, but right now it doesn't make sense.Jelephant (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Renata3 removed the merge template on the grounds that notability has clearly been established. While they're not wrong, this discussion needs to be closed first. If they'd like to do so, I would not object, but they can't just remove the template while the discussion is still in progress. Smartyllama (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reading the arguments

Without voting I can see a lot of WP:WAX when it comes to other people and their death articles. The ones putting forward policy related arguments are those in favor of a merge, and those who want this to be about the helicopter crash as a whole. I am hesitant to be the closer here as I believe this should run at least 24 hours before being decided upon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think this falls under WAX though, since there are numerous examples of articles of avation accidents with less than a dozen causalties and so therefore the it isn't about specific articles, but a whole class of articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
lol. You just compared it with other stuff while saying WAX doesnt apply. Number of deaths in accident is not the only criteria. Yes, if the number is huge, it is notable. But an accident with no deaths at all can become notable if WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and not just news coverage :) —usernamekiran (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Hemiauchenia here. If it's just being compared to one article, then WP:WAX might apply. If there are dozens if not hundreds of comparable articles, some of which have achieved GA or even FA status, then it really doesn't, since it's clear it meets the established standard. And plenty of oppose votes did so on GNG grounds as well, either implicitly or explicitly. Plus I find it hard to believe that an article with 30+ sources fails GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Smartyllama, you can't conceive of how an article with 30+ references can't meet GNG? I can think of dozens of ways. Here, the applicable one is lack of reliable secondary sources. There are none. The first one will be the NTSB report, which is months, if not years, out. John from Idegon (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@Smartyllama: there are 30+ reliable sources in US. A celebrity died, they published news. Normal. To achive notanility, such subjects have to receive WP:SUSTAINED coverage, not news coverage. I hope this answers your query :) —usernamekiran (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:WAX does apply here as editors are comparing this situation to other articles without explaining how they are similar in context and/or how the same rationale applies. In any case though, I am seeing more of a consensus to just rename the article so it fits the scope of the crash rather than focus on the death of one person as I have already noted. If someone wants to be WP:BOLD and agrees with this assessment then go ahead. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The WAX point is legitimate, since these are different cases (e.g. involving different numbers of notable people or having a culturally significant aftermath in the following months). Plus, there’s a lot of it’s in the news!, legendary person I’ve heard of (or haven’t), and crystal balling here (on both sides). There are also GNG arguments that don’t take the issue of merging or content forking into account. — MarkH21talk 03:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Article name change

Just change the article name to focus on the crash itself, similar to all the aviation crash articles throughout Wikipedia. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 04:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

See the below RFC, we’ll get to changing the name once these other editors stop obstructing us. ~ HAL333 04:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
AGF, don’t use battleground rhetoric. — MarkH21talk 04:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
If this is aviation crash, not information about Kobe Bryant any informations about it must use DMY format, with exception of US topics. I'm okay for using MDY as this crash happened inside US but if Kobe Bryant was killed in helicopter incident but happened outside US, these article should use international DMY format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose change: The name of the subject who was most prominently killed in the helicopter crash is a famous celebrity. J4lambert (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Article photo: Trump helicopter?

Would it be OK if we used one of the existing photos from the Sikorsky_S-76 article instead of this photo of one of Trump's helicopter? Nothing against Trump, but it seems unrelated and distracting from the topic.

Absolutely no one but you cares about this. This is no place for TDS... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.143.0.181 (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I would agree with switching the image of the helicopter. The "Trump" colorway may be a bit confusing for readers. Also, don't forget to sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~), because I'm not sure which two editors I'm responding to. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose merge (strongly) - 8 other people died aswell in this helicopter crash, so it is worth an article on its own. Ashleygoldxo (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Should the article have an infobox?

There is currently a brewing edit war over Valoem's unilateral decision to repeatedly remove the infobox of the crash from the article. Can we have a discussion about wether the article should have an Infobox for now?

It is completely rational and exactly what I attempted to prevent happened. Valoem talk contrib 02:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Undue information on the article

The initial reason why I am opposed to the inclusion of an aviation accident template with the Death of Kobe Bryant is the fact that information pertinent to the crash and not the death of Kobe may be included. The section involving the victims and investigation have to do with the accident itself and not the death of Kobe. Mentioning unrelated victims in this article trivializes them as people and gives undue weight. Valoem talk contrib 02:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Given how 9 people died let alone Kobe Bryant also dying too, it would have already been enough to merit an aviation article. It's also an aviation accident by definition and warrants an aviation accident template itself. It's used for a lot of celebrity aviation crashes like Payne Stewart and Jenni Rivera. Tntad (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

List of reactions by politicians and others

See CNN. Yoninah (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Reaction by the NBA and LA Lakers

In response to the death of Kobe Bryant there is an announcement that the LA Clippers Vs. LA Lakers game has been postponed due to Kobe Bryant's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:c600:3c20:b4c7:22cc:21a9:615 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Request using UTC time beside PST time

Can someone add UTC times for the helicopter crash that led to death of Kove Bryant, because I found that PST was equivalent to UTC-08:00 and Indonesian version of this article adding UTC time beside PST time as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Why? For an unscheduled event like this, how does it matter? It isn't dependent on anything outside local time, and nothing legitimate outside of local time is dependent on it. Truly, why? John from Idegon (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done John from Idegon (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

What the Indonesian article is doing is not relevant. Simple no. ~ HAL333 21:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

UTC would just confuse, this is not military where Zulu time is used. Local time is best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLQR (talk • contribs) 07:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

background section

@ShadowCyclone, Bohbye, John from Idegon, and WWGB: In my opinion, the current "background" is sort of POV and/or undue. Kobe Bryant frequently used the helicopter to avoid Los Angeles traffic, and considered it a tool for maintaining his body, as it let him avoid sitting in a car for two hours in congested traffic. and should be only "Kobe Bryant frequently used the helicopter to avoid Los Angeles traffic." Opinions? —usernamekiran (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead, and updated the section. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

IFR operation requirements

closed the discussion in accordance with WP:NOTFORUM. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As the page now reads "Flying above the clouds would have been possible if the pilot had elected to operate under instrument flying rules, but that would have led to lengthy delays and detours (thereby using up any anticipated time savings) due to severe congestion in Los Angeles controlled airspace" the pilot did not have the option to fly IFR due to the aircraft's operational restrictions and 2 pilot requirements for that operation.

According to the FAA/POH or "Pilot Operational Handbook" for this aircraft, in regard to IFR flight, it states the following:

5.5.5. Training for Seat Dependent Tasks: RFM minimum flight crew is specified as: One pilot seated in the right seat (Day visual flight rules (VFR)). Two pilots (Night VFR and instrument flight rules (IFR)). [1]

For two pilot operations, the PIC may occupy either seat. RFM procedures are that the "pilot" occupies the right cockpit seat and the “copilot” occupies the left cockpit seat.

Sadly it would seem that the aircraft was dispatched with 1 pilot only and the second pilot required for IFR flight was not on board. --2600:8802:2200:2320:AC67:73C8:B77A:8C5A (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=FSB%20S-76D
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reactions and quotations

Can we have a proper discussion about the articles reactions and quotations section? As currently it seems to have large sections removed or restored based on the whims of individual users. For my part I think the reactions section should mostly focus on reactions from people involved in Basketball and people from other sports should be removed for irrelevance. I'm ambivalent on the quotations from the US presidents, and I'd like some opinions on the issue, Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that reactions from prominent basketball figures and US Presidents are probably fine (to a reasonable quantity, e.g. not 50 ex-NBA players). Reactions from electoral candidates, local politicians, musicians, etc. are not due WP:PROMINENCE. The reactions should also be kept short as opposed to long block quotes. — MarkH21talk 22:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I’d keep the memorial section & the reactions from prominent basketball figures (the quotes & the intentional 8 & 24 second violations by players). I don’t have a strong opinion 1 way or the other when it comes to keeping the quotes from the presidents, but I’d trim those quotes if they’re kept. I previously added a tweet from Jeff McNeil that I thought was notable b/c it was the only reaction I saw that focused more on the death of John Altobelli than the death of Kobe. I was thinking of restoring it for that reason, but I’m not sure what others think of that. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Let us bear in mind that this is an encyclopedic article. These huge blocks of quotes have no encyclopedic value because there is no context or explanation. The article is starting to look like a memorial board where we just pin quotes by famous people. Surtsicna (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep I agree, long quotes are undue prominence. — MarkH21talk 22:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Can there be a line in the reaction section noting that the Lakers-Clippers game originally scheduled for tonight was postponed indefinitely because of his death? 160.93.6.7 (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


Map

The helicopter map has 1-7 labels. Shouldn't there be a #8 that includes the actual destination of the craft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.199.153 (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. No, it is about what happened upto crash, so the map ends with the crash. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Gee, sorry for asking for useful information. I'm going to edit all airplane crash articles now to remove any mention of the destination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.199.153 (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Kindly go ahead. Destinations of crashed flights are necessary only with flights of airliners, military, royalty, and head of states. Other than that, feel free to edit all airplane crash articles. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

SPEEDY CLOSE
With no prejudice to revisiting this after the move request closes. I'm closing this in the interest of keeping discussion focused on one proposal at a time. Too many proposals with too many opinions is generally not a good idea. (edit conflict) (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It appears there is undue weight given to the crash itself in this article. Historically we have many articles focused on helicopter crashes which do not involve famous individuals. The first section of the article is about the 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash. Both victims unrelated to Kobe and the investigation should be mentioned in article about the accident itself and not the Death of Kobe. In the very near future these sections are likely to receive extensive coverage particularly the sections involving investigations. Typically death articles about notable individuals focus on immediate and long term impact as well as reactions from others. Including other victims in this article trivializes their deaths. The crash itself should be split into 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash. Valoem talk contrib 04:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  • @MarkH21:, @Fuzheado: and @Nohomersryan: there is already enough information for a separate article, in the next 48 hours there will be an information overflow all involving causes of the accident. The primary issue here is that if Kobe wasn't involved in the accident, there would already be an article titled 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash. This crash killed 9 people and is therefore a major accident and is one of the worst helicopter accidents this decade. I'm surprised an article was written about Kobe's death prior to one about the crash. Valoem talk contrib 05:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's probably too soon to say that for now. The article in its present form is very bloated with tributes and quotes, and still isn't close to as long as Death of Aaliyah or the JFK Jr article. If there's an issue with an overemphasis on Bryant, I'd prefer moving it to his own page rather than creating one specifically for his death, which seems like it would primarily duplicate existing info. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's better to have topics combined in ONE article if possible. You don't want to have fragmented articles all over wikipeadia. About the subject itself, the crash is explaining the death, and the effect of it. Can I Log In (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The Death of Kobe Bryant would receive tons of reactions and impact on society therefore should be separate, however if one was insistent on a single article it would be titled with regard to the accident itself. Valoem talk contrib 05:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and close - is already part of the discussion above. No need for a second thread. Also, the article is about a story that started yesterday it is fresh, no need to split up the article at this point. Though the article will need some work when the story has calm down a bit.BabbaQ (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and rename this article to "2020 Calabasas helicopter crash" – the crash is notable but this does not warrant two articles. The death of Kobe should be included in a stand alone article of the crash. cookie monster (2020) 755 08:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Simply harebrained to have a third article. If you want a separate article on the crash to focus on the rest of the victims, the Reactions section specific to Bryant should be merged to his main article. Reywas92Talk 09:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose We don't need another article. This one can cover the crash as well. At most it might need a rename. Nigej (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Strong Oppose This article is the one. CatcherStorm talk 20:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Maybe rename to one of the several other names already proposed, but we do not need any more forking. ~ HAL333 21:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Premature and unnecessary. If this article gets long enough, it could be split into separate articles on the crash and its consequences; but right now there doesn't seem to be any need for that. Besides, it's perfectly possible to have a lengthy, detailed article about both a vehicular accident and the aftermath and memorials to the victims; see for example Death of Diana, Princess of Wales or The Day the Music Died. Robofish (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. This story is of a major air disaster involving 9 fatalities, and separately a story of the death of a major sports figure. IMHO there’s absolutely no reason to combine the two stories into one article. It might be to early to split, but it should definitely happen in a week or so. Bohbye (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Split There is no reason to split this into another article as there shouldn't be multiple pages covering the same event. If anything is changed Kobe should have his own section. 172.101.174.177 (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose One article is sufficient, at least for the moment. Most of the current article is about the crash. The section on Bryant is mostly just made up of long quotes from people talking about his passing (which will likely be heavily trimmed in the future). If the crash gets split off into its own article, there'd be no reason for a standalone "Death of Kobe Bryant" article which would consist almost entirely of quotes. Surachit (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now The article isn’t big enough right now to warrant splitting. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article isn't big enough to suggest a merge is needed. I am against all of these discussions anyway, the current article is fine with it's title, this is common practise. Swordman97 talk to me 04:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. It would be discriminatory toward others died to have the article dedicated primarily to Kobe Bryant only. I understand fans may need a place to mourn, but aside from Kobe Bryant & his daughter, there are also 6 others dead, making Kobe Bryant's death subset of the bigger story of a helicopter's crash Tabdiukov (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move to Kobe Bryant Helicopter crash. However it's worth noting that it's a mixed bag on here as far as articles being named after the helicopter/plane and year, Death of Celebrity Name, and Celebrity Name w/ Plane/Helicopter crash. I looked up elsewhere lists of celebrities who died in aviation accidents and searched for their correlating Wikipedia articles. Some people just had it as the Death section of their bio page, as well as the following examples of other types of tiles. Ex. Rocky Marciano,Lynyrd Skynyrd, Audie Murphy pages are all named after vehicle name and year. Ex. Stevie Ray Vaughan, Aaliyah, Ricky Nelson are named "Death of Celebrity name" Ex. JFK Jr and Bill Graham articles named "Celebrity vehicle crash" there is no real precedent. RyanConnell5150 (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Support' if Kobe was perhaps flying solo on the chopper then the current title would be appropriate, but there were eight other victims hence i like to believe its indecent to the incident article to be titled the way it is now.Leaderofthewave. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I would say it’s irrelevant and unnecessary unless the heli’s details had part in the crash. Moonlandingwasahoax (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Destination

Don’t now about you guys, but according to flightradar24.com, his helicopter was entourage to El Monte, California, not to the listed city. Moonlandingwasahoax (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Under VFR, the pilot was not required to file a flight plan. However, the same helicopter had flown to Camarillo the day before; in addition, in the transcript of the radio transmissions, the Burbank tower asks the pilot if the flight will take SR 118 to Camarillo, but the pilot states they will follow US 101 instead. Refer to the transcript posted at The Washington Post. The potential El Monte destination is not supported. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2020

Under "in sports" Former ice hockey player Teemu Selänne wrote on his Instagram account: so sad... heartbreaking...such a terrible tragedy ,RIP Kobe and Gigi and seven others who lost their lives today. The deepest thoughts and sympathies go to all of their loved ones during this tragic time LepolaAatu (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Support because although Kobe was the most recognizable person in the accident, there were others involved and the crash itself also has sufficient and significant information to be noted. LuisIsHard (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Nonlop321 (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Move to Kobe Bryant helicopter crash. I oppose the proposed target title. Although there are articles that follow this naming convention, not after the names of the notable victims, it does not mean it is absolute. We can make exceptions, just as with John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash, because this article is not just about the crash itself, but also the reactions to the death of Bryant, the aftermath. WP:COMMONNAME applies as well. Polo (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

ATC Radio

The aircraft was flying using VFR under Visual Flight Rules. It was issued a notice to hold in order to avoid traffic at LAX. It then requested Special VFR when the ATC noticed that all airports were under IFR of less then 3 miles of visibility. The pilot was told to follow the 5 n/w bound freeway to the 118 then to the 101, it was then transitioned to Van Nays Delta airspace and was told to advise when in VFR (3 miles visibility) and clearly lost visual contact with the roads it was instructed to follow. at 3:30[1] --2600:8802:2200:2320:B4B4:8237:FD61:8581 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Video of radar tracking and ATC comms is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0pQfgi9ZqU Globus Aerostaticus (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://forums.liveatc.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15767.0;attach=10604
Please stop wasting others time and learn what constitutes a reliable source. You cannot use either of the above to source anything in the article. John from Idegon (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
While this data cannot be put into the article without further verification, then it suffices for Talk. News outlets can then work to verify the veracity of this recording. -Mardus /talk 09:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The LA Times seems to have obliged; they themselves link to that YouTube page, which seems to me to authenticate for us. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparently no mayday was called, last audible talking from pilot at 17:40:44 UTC and lost contact at 17:45:20, unconfirmed no "MAYDAY, MAYDAY" called. Moonlandingwasahoax (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The holding pattern was for traffic at Bob Hope (Burbank) Airport, not LAX. 47.137.181.252 (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Important reported information about the helicopter

To add to the "Background" section:

The helicopter, a 1991 Sikorsky S-76B, was purchased from the state of Illinois. They were selling it after 4,000 hours of flight time to avoid the expensive upcoming maintenance costs; the state had a hard time selling that particular helicopter, and it was on the market for a year before it was auctioned for a winning bid of $515,161.[1]

That same highly relevant information was published by many news outlets; that was just one. 74.101.202.221 (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Orner, Ben (January 26, 2020). "Helicopter in Kobe Bryant crash was owned by state of Illinois from 2007-15". Journal Star. Lincoln, Nebraska. Retrieved January 27, 2020.
Why is that "highly relevant information"? WWGB (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree with WWGB. Im not asking why you view this as highly relevant; Im here to tell you it's not. That's the USUAL reason for the timing of the sale of a commercial aircraft. Sell it prior to scheduled maintenance and make it someone else's problem. And it isn't like it can be avoided. No one would want to. Some folks watch too much TV. John from Idegon (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree with WWGB. This very common in the aviation industry and nothing relevant. --Bohbye (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
What about mentioning any of that information, like even that the helicopter was 13 years old? It says the model, now how about the year? 74.101.202.221 (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Not relevant either. ShadowCyclone talk 12:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The year of the helicopter, 1991, is already mentioned in the article. — MarkH21talk 07:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

oxford comma edit war

@Desk Jovi and WWGB: whats up with edits like this? Kindly state your opinions before making any further changes, or I will have to block you for edit warring. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, since you are not an admin, you will not be blocking anyone. By the way, I am not the one who breached 3RR. WWGB (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
WWGB, it was unnecessary edit warring nonetheless. If the addition of a comma is reverted, just move on. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess any content-related discussion can continue below... if anyone really still cares. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I feel that the comma is useful in this context in reducing confusion, per MOS:OXFORD, hence why I added it. For one, it just looks odd, for lack of a better word, to have an unbroken string of ands at the end of the sentence. Furthermore, the use of a serial comma makes it obvious that the pilot is not included among the "six" people mentioned in the previous item in the series (as he was the ninth victim). Perhaps it is simply stylistic, but it seems to improve readability. Thoughts are appreciated, though. --Kinu t/c 15:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I am in for oxford comma. @WWGB: You, and me have been on the same side since ages. Obviously I am not going to block you I said what I said just to stop an edit war :) —usernamekiran (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Mass attendance

"On that morning To see full news article Go to: https://ucatholic.com/news/devout-catholic-kobe-bryant-attended-mass-morning-of-accident/ or read the full article below:

(Content removed, see below.)

End of this addition request to be "In the news" as it is clearly an integral part of knowing Mr. Kobe Bryant. Thank you, Laura DeAlmeida

This matter is already addressed in Kobe Bryant#Personal life, where it better belongs. WWGB (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the content of this request, as the wholesale pasting of it here is likely a copyright violation. It remains available at the link provided by the requesting user. --Kinu t/c 19:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Malibu Canyon

The article states that the valley where the helicopter crashed is part of Malibu Canyon. The canyon has a Wikipedia article under Malibu Creek. I think that this would be a useful link. 47.137.181.252 (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It also lists the crash site of being 30 miles from Los Angeles when technically its only about 3 mile from Los Angeles City Limits. Its about 30 miles from Downtown Los Angeles but only 3 miles from Woodland Hills. --158.61.6.232 (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Typically the distance to/from a city is measured from a point, not the nearest border. For instance, the official point within San Francisco to measure distances is in UN Plaza. I'm not sure where the official point is for Los Angeles but it is likely close to or within downtown LA. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, here it is: Kilometre zero#United States -- distances to/from Los Angeles are measured from the intersection of 1st and Main. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
     THanks. --158.61.6.232 (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
L.A. is weird in that its downtown is only a handful of miles from a city limit, but there are points in the city limits that are 25 miles away from DTLA. 47.137.181.252 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Company Flight Restrictions

Forbes goes into detail in the link below, about its practices on IFR flights being banned in its aircraft.[1]--2600:8802:2200:2320:10AD:DA7A:CD39:ACCF (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2020/01/29/pilot-in-kobe-bryant-helicopter-crash-wasnt-allowed-to-fly-by-instruments/#6681ae26ea37

I have a video of the crash

Is it acceptable to embed or no? TheEpicGhosty (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

TheEpicGhosty, did you record it yourself? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Cofeeandcrumbs, no. (TheEpicGhosty) 23:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
If there are no copyright issues, go ahead my friend. ~ HAL333 23:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
TheEpicGhosty, then no. That would be a copyright violation. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Cofeeandcrumbs It could have been recorded by someone he knows, so it might not be a copyright violation if they give him permission. If not it's probably a Youtube video that could be added as a external video. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Not necessarily, they might have received permission.Tvx1 00:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Unequivocally no. If there exists any question of who owns copyright, we cannot use it. And then there's always the question of good taste. I'll oppose its inclusion even with proper copyright release. John from Idegon (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

What is this "good taste" you speak of? ShadowCyclone talk 01:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
TheEpicGhosty, If you did not record it, then no. The person who made the video, may upload it themselves. -Mardus /talk 09:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Alternately, an WP:OTRS could be filed with the upload, that TheEpicGhosty would upload -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. Permission can always be verified through the OTRS system. What I'm more concerned about is whether we could actually verify that the footage is of this event.Tvx1 00:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no video of the crash. There was a reported video of it but that was actually a different helicopter crash, not this one. If there was a video of the crash that was confirmed, the people at TMZ probably would have gotten there hands on it and would have posted it by now.--Rockchalk717 08:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Is TMZ a reliable source? 47.137.181.252 (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
While TMZ is a business that most would agree uses gossip to generate revenue, they are very reliable at getting information when it deals with the death of a famous person. I believe that there could be a debate here on if it counts as a reliable source, but for now they do have some credit for being reliable. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I never said anything about TMZ as a source I’m not sure where that came from. My point with that was based on TMZ’s past, if there was a verified video they would have had it a long time ago.--Rockchalk717 22:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
My point was a mix of two things, one a slight subtle jab at TMZ, and also to in a roundabout way say no verified video exits.--Rockchalk717 22:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Well there actually is footage of the actual helicopter in flight. But shows the helicopter before it got into any sort of trouble. No verified footage of the actual crash has emerged so far.Tvx1 00:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
And that’s what I’m saying. I saw those videos but there isn’t a verified video of the crash itself and if there was someone would have posted it by now.--Rockchalk717 00:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Notable for lede

If Mauser is not notable enough to be mentioned by name in the lede, then neither is Gianna Bryant, who has been determined by Wikipedia consensus to be not indepdently notable of her deceased father. Elizium23 (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Normal practice in aircraft accident articles to only mention names of those who are wiki notable (normally determined by the availability of a wikipedia article, or would be noteworthy enough but the wikipedia article hasnt been written yet) and those of the flight crew. MilborneOne (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely agree that only persons with a WP article about them should be named in air accident articles. The only exception being the cockpit crew. This has been discussed many times, including here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Question. I have been waiting for this article to cool off a bit before I remove all non notables. - Samf4u (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Rapid descent? Is that notable?

I'm planning to revert the lead because the silly line about a "rapid descent" merely states the obvious. Most (but not all) crashes by definition are the result of a rapid descent. In contrast, it's much more notable when a crash does not result from a rapid descent, but from a gradual descent that happens to be controlled flight into terrain, as in the case of Asiana Airlines Flight 214. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the way it is now as it is supported in the Accident section. - Samf4u (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's not edit war

In the last week or so, samf4u, Swagging, and I have been involved in a dispute over my attempts to expand the lede. I feel that the lede is not representative of the article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The ideal lede would have three paragraphs covering the three main subjects presented in this article: the crash itself, the investigation, and the response - essentially the impact. I have succeeded in adding the 2nd paragraph, but Samf4u insists that the other paragraph is not necessary to the lede, or "lead" as they called it. Considering that around a third of the article covers how different groups responded or honored the victims, I think it would make sense for a third of the lede to address the topic. Otherwise the lede does not accurately represent the article’s content, thus misleading the reader. The other user objected to the lack of citations, but per WP:LEDECITE the lede does not have to contain citations if the information is supported later in the article. If I reverted again, I would have violated the 3R rule, so here I am. Hopefully we can reach a compromise. ~ HAL333 02:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to add it, you got to add a source with it and try and expand to more of a paragraph. Swagging (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
No, this is incorrect. The text in the lead does not need its own source per MOS:LEAD, as long as the same fact is mentioned and cited in the body of the article. I've re-added HAL333's line about the memorials and the renaming of the All-Star game, because the "Memorials" section is a major part of the article and the lead is incomplete without reference to this. And certainly you're right that it would be better to have a whole paragraph, but a single line is better than nothign at all. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi all and thank you HAL333 for starting this thread. As far as aircraft accident articles go this one is unique in that approximately half of the article covers memorials. WP is not supposed to be a memorial. Let us remember that this is an encyclopedia not the National Enquirer and the subject of this article is an aircraft accident. I'd like to see most of the memorial material moved to the Kobe Bryant article, but I'm probably in the minority on that so it's not going to happen at this point in time. The article is so unbalanced with way too much memorial stuff but as it sits the lead section should mention it. If you add something HAL333 I won't revert you, and no, it dose not need an inline citation. Samf4u (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
There was massive pushback to the memorial additions during the early days of the aftermath (I remember edit warring over an in retrospect overly long Clinton Foundation quote I added, which was thankfully later reduced to a brief mention), but after the attention left the article IP users started adding all the memorial stuff back. It might be worth pinging some of the contributors to the earlier discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, with an option to split material solely relating to reactions and memorials for Bryant back to a separate Death of Kobe Bryant article. There is substantial and well-supported consensus favoring the move, particularly in light of the fact that Bryant was not the only notable victim of the incident. BD2412 T 02:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Death of Kobe Bryant → 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash – Since the merge discussion is close, the consensus that emerged seemed to be that "Death of Kobe Bryant" is an inappropriate title since there were eight other victims. Suggesting "2020 Calabasas helicopter crash" since it is easily accessible/understood by readers and is consistent with 2020 New Taipei helicopter crash. The other proposal I've seen (2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash) doesn't read naturally and it's harder for readers to search up. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  • support Like SnowFire says, it is a notable aviation incident with two notable persons as causality (John Altobelli). Further: except from the "background" and "reactions" section, the entire article is about the crash, reporting of the crash, investigation of the crash and so on. The suggested title would be WP:CONSISTENT with all other private air vehichles incidents. See: Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2019, Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2020, and parent category. This is the only article with inconsistency. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Per the censusous. Although the crash will more likely be remembered for Kobe's death, considering he wasn't the only notable person killed, this article should at least be moved. --SansUT (talk | contributions) 17:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support While it is true that Kobe is the most well known of the casualties, he was not the only notable one to die and the event in itself is notable.★Trekker (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This article is about the crash itself and should be titled accordingly, like this example: 1977 Mississippi CV-240 crash. PJM (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Split, this was the issue which could have been avoided in the beginning had we had two articles. I had intend to move information to the crash to initiate the creation of an article about the subject. As it stands, a civilian helicopter crashes resulting in the deaths of nine people makes this among the worst civilian helicopter deaths in the past decade. If celebrities haven't been involved this article would have been titled focusing on the crash. The primary pillar is WP:NPOV which requires unbias coverage. This is a prime example of bias coverage giving fame precedence over subject matter. Given the status and notability of Kobe Bryant, his death has had widespread reactions and impact therefore is certainly notable enough to have an article. The main problem now is that a majority of this article is now dedicated to reactions and impact of Kobe's death therefore the most reasonable option appears to be a split. Valoem talk contrib 18:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't think splitting is a good idea. Kobe's death IS the helicopter crash and vice versa, there's no need to artificially separate them as if they are two distinct events. The renaming also enforces the abovementioned NPOV with unbiased title, while the article's size is OK, advising against WP:SPLIT where size matters. Brandmeistertalk 19:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What are we going to do about the information regarding reactions to Kobe's death and its impact as he is a cultural icon and not just in the United States, these details wouldn't belong on a page specifically about the crash itself, but on a page about his death. Valoem talk contrib 21:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Yet we wouldn't be having a Wikipedia article for their deaths. They are notable because of Koby. I see it more like "In the 'Death of Koby Bryant', others were also killed". Easier for readers. The obvious point here is Koby made this news. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@MX: Yes we certainly would. A civilian helicopter crash which killed 9 people is certainly not trivial and many less severe crashes have coverage here. This accident would be notable regardless of who was involved. Valoem talk contrib 21:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Harder for readers to find in external search engines. No one will think "oh yeah, 2020 XYZ helicopter crash". They'll likely Google "Death Koby Bryant" or something like that, which will get them here. The helicopter crash is not notable. Koby's death is. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
    @MX: bots, web spiders, and crawlers of search engines know, and understand what redirects are; including wikipedia redirects :) —usernamekiran (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WWGB Astonmartini (?) 21:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to Kobe Bryant helicopter crash - as other users have suggested; it's less disrespectful towards the other occupants of the helicopter crash, since article readers are likely to understand that article is about a helicopter crash and Kobe Bryant is not only person affected by it, even if he is by far the most notable victim of it. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Additional note: If not Kobe Bryant helicopter crash (which I believe is supported by media coverage as WP:COMMONNAME of the accident), then I would support a move to 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Naming. Either is preferable to keeping it at "Death of Kobe Bryant" which I consider an inappropriate article title. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Have there been any other helicopter crashes in Calabasas? If not, the year shouldn't be in the title. Jim Michael (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
In further opposition to moving, I present an argument by User:Brandmeister, specifically, that "Kobe's death IS the helicopter crash and vice versa." -Mardus /talk 05:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
They probably shouldn't be different User:Gemini2525 - and either could be moved or merged, I think. Though one difference is that in neither case were any of the victims notable enough to have their own articles in Wikipedia before the crash. Nfitz (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Well we can label them by the month that they occurred in. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Support this suggestion: rename this article to focus on the crash, and move the Kobe-centric part (reactions to his death) back to his page. In which case, I'd suggest redirecting "Death of Kobe Bryant" to Kobe Bryant#Death. Simplebutpowerful 15:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, because other people (8) died in this crash (including, by example, Altobelli). Awvazquez (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The primary reason this crash recieved worldwide coverage was because of Kobe Bryant died as a result being one of the passengers. We need to use the common name which would be what we currently have. I mean we do not say 1997 Paris car crash we say Death of Diana, Princess of Wales.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Spy-cicle: A helicopter crash in Calabasas with nine fatalities would merit an article on its own, while a car crash in Paris wouldn't. That's the difference. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    Possibly, however the primary reason this gained so much worldwide coverage was because Bryant was one of casualities if he had not had died it would not have recieved as much coverage. Perhaps it would have recieved coverage in local LA news, perhaps regional news but certainly not international.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    There are multiple reasons for that. First of all, norms are different for royalties, and head of states. Even her biographical article is "Diana, Princess of Wales", and not "Diana Windsor" or "Diana Frances Spencer". Furthermore, there are conspiracy theories surronding her death. Within a week or two, the "car crash" was redundant, and everybody were talking about her death. Over the period, her death received WP:SUSTAINED coverage. It is too soon to tell if Bryant's death would receive sustained coverage. If it does, another move request can be put forward accordingly. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    Firstly, I am not sure how the differing terms of "royalties" to non-royals is relevant for this move discussion specfically. The response does not really address my point that the primary reason this gained so much worldwide coverage was because Bryant was one of casualities. If Bryant did not die it would be of international importantce or international coverage.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Most importantly Bryant was not the only notable person involved. Moving to 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash makes the most sense to me. - Samf4u (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per CONSISTENCY with articles such as Death of Aaliyah. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but for consistency, we can open a move request on that page once this one closes. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mention of Trump

Mention of President Trump's reaction was completely removed from this article a couple months ago, by a vandal, and nobody bothered putting it back, until the IP tried today, but it was reverted completely by @PEIsquirrel:, once again completely omitting the fact that President Trump did in fact react to Bryant's death, which seems sort of relevant to me. Elizium23 (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Why did you post this here now? I already restored Trump to that section, 35 minutes before you posted this. The initial edit read something akin to "current at the time president" and awkwardly separated Trump out from other presidents whose reactions were noted, which I corrected. What do you want to be done here? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
To explain why I reverted you, because you seemed confused. Do you think it is better to have awkward phrasing or no mention at all? Elizium23 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm only confused because your rollback summary was inaccurate, as I in fact did explain my revert. Anyway, as I've said already, I restored the Trump mention in that section more than half an hour ago. Did you even look at the current revision of the article before you posted this? You restored the IP's edit, which read: Current President at the time, Donald J. Trump, as well as former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and I condensed that down to President Donald Trump and former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. That edit is right here. Do you disagree with it? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Elizium23 (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 17 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

2020 Calabasas helicopter crash → Kobe Bryant helicopter crash – In the last requested move, this title was brought up, but was never seriously considered because it wasn't the focus of the discussion. I was one of the editors that supported moving the current name. However, I believe "Kobe Bryant helicopter crash" is by far the WP:COMMONNAME. Kobe Bryant helicopter crash gets a little over 3 million hits on Google, while the current name gets a little shy of 300 thousand. Additionally, this title would be consistent with titles such as John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash. Overall, Bryant's name should be mentioned since this article would not be notable without him dying in the crash. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The notable person that died in the New York crash is mentioned one time in the article. It probably is WP:UNDUE to include his name in the title because it's not him that has made the crash notable, but the fact that it crashed in a building. If Kobe wasn't involved this would likely not be a notable event. Same is true for the JKD Jr. crash. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 22 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The article's scope was found to be about the crash itself, not necessarily the fact that Kobe Bryant died in it. As such, the current title remains appropriate. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

2020 Calabasas helicopter crash → Death of Kobe Bryant – Article title should reflect the reason the event is notable, as much as reasonably possible. If Kobe and his daughter weren’t on that helicopter flight, it’s almost 100% guaranteed that the crash wouldn’t be notable for a standalone WP article like this. This has a far greater overall impact in people’s minds of being related to Kobe Bryant than it is about being related to helicopters or aviation crashes. Even more so, the impact of its relevance to Calabasas is minuscule compared to Kobe Bryant. I am reminded of the article for Attempted assassination of Harry S. Truman where Truman was completely untouched and a Secret Service agent by the name of Leslie Coffelt was killed. If the titling for that article paralleled the title for this article by using a description that’s broad and all-encompassing and tries to “cover all the bases”, it would be something like 1950 Blair House attack. There are likely far more people discovering the meaning of Calabasas for the first time through their prior knowledge of Kobe Bryant than there are the other way around – discovering the meaning of Kobe Bryant for the first time through prior knowledge of Calabasas Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

By far, the most common recognition of the event is “oh that’s the event that killed Kobe Bryant” or “oh, that’s the death of Kobe Bryant” as opposed to “oh, that’s the helicopter crash in Calabasas” Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I will put forth a plausible “devil’s advocate” argument here, to have this discussion progress more clearly and efficiently: John Altobelli is the one other dead victim from the plane crash who has a standalone WP biography.

However, if Altobelli was not on that flight and Bryant still was, would there still be this article about the crash? 100% unequivocally YES, not one person in the world could possibly deny that. And it would still be 90-99% as long and detailed as it is with Altobelli as a victim.

Now conversely, if Bryant was not on that flight and Altobelli still was, would there still be this article about the crash? 99% damn near certainly NO. The only people who would plausibly think of such an idea would be Altobelli’s family, friends, and others with a personal vested interest and bias in Altobelli. Altobelli’s article would probably have 1-3 sentences devoted to the topic, and that’s likely the only impact that the crash would have on the Wikipedia space.

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose. Though at first glance this might seem to be a reasonable WP:COMMONNAME request, it runs into two major issues: (a) As others have noted, 8 other people died in the crash. (b) Perhaps more importantly, this article is ALSO about an aviation accident or incident, a unique Wikipedia category with its own notability standards and highly experienced editors; that group of editors should have priority here. (See "Death of Aaliyah", used as an argument against this move in the past but subsequently moved to 2001 Marsh Harbour Cessna 402 crash due to its aviation notability; same logic applies here.) --RBBrittain (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The Truman page is explicitly about two guys trying to assassinate Truman, so it wouldn't make sense to call it something else. Here, there was no explicit intent to kill Bryant over anyone else in the aircraft, so I don't think the comparison holds up. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

While I already knew that it was a helicopter crash and that there were also 8 other people killed, other editors have introduced new perspectives in this discussion, and as a result I consider my position as OP/requester to now be neutral. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

route over city

may I ask, why not flying over the ocean? Gpmalek76 (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Calabasas_helicopter_crash/Archive_1&oldid=1182421799"