Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep - There is overwhelming consensus that the article should be kept. The article on the pilot can be merged into this article without need to run a separate AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by mjroots (talk • contribs)

2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash

[edit]
2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost three months have passed since this accident occurred and the article was created, the article is now quite stable in terms of additions and it fails to meet WP:EVENT, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:AIRCRASH.

Even though the formal accident investigation has not been completed there is no public information at this point to indicate that the accident was anything other than a "continued VFR into IMC and collision with obstacle" accident, a very common scenario. There is no evidence that there were any equipment malfunctions nor any indication of service bulletins, airworthiness directives, changes to VFR routes or any other matériel changes on the way. While both the Lord Mayor and the Prime Minister indicated that there should be regulation reviews, there is no indication that these have happened or that these statements were anything more than the usual "someone ought to do something" comments made by politicians after one of these accidents, that are quickly forgotten.

As far as the reporting goes, all but two refs cited in the article are from the day of the accident or the day after. Two were from six days later, but essentially the story disappeared from the media completely in under a week and hasn't resurfaced since.

As far as the physical effects went, two people were killed (pilot and a ground bystander) and there were road closures in the immediate area for the rest of the day of the accident, but it seems that roads were reopened the next day. An article, Peter Barnes (pilot), was started on the accident pilot, but it is clear that his notability does not extend beyond being killed in this accident. Depending on the decision here at AfD on this article that article can be considered separately and later.

So what I see a month after the accident is that was a common type of helicopter crash, similar to hundreds of others that happen each year, with two regrettable deaths and so far no lasting press coverage or any other long term repercussions of any type. It seems that the only reason that this got any press coverage at all is that it happened in the built-up area of a major city and therefore in close proximity to many news outlets, making press coverage convenient to undertake. At this point in time as far as I can see it still fails WP:AIRCRASH, WP:EVENT and is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which is a Wikipedia policy designed specifically to exclude these types of common daily events that have no lasting effects.

Since there has already been some heated debate on the article talk page and on WikiProject Aviation I would suggest contributors to this debate review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions before commenting to avoid the classic arguments to retain the article "just because WP:ILIKEIT" or similar. Arguments to retain the article should show that it has enduring effects and thus complies with the policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - yes, while single minor accidents are in general not very interesting, this was the first ever fatal helicopter crash over London, with remarkable circumstances (sensibly reluctant passenger, insistent pilot, dreadful fog, etc). This makes it not only newsworthy but permanently notable, and definitely not minor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first of those has no particular relevance, as it's trumped by policies and guidelines. The third of those is basically a distillation of the second. WP:EVENT seems well covered by all sorts of aspects of our article, not least the following:
Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, announced a review of the regulations concerning flying in central London and the safety of tall buildings.[20]
David Cameron said, on the day of the accident, that there would be a review into the rules governing helicopter flights over central London.[21]
Cheers --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Sourcing is obviously substantial so, per policy, why is this even questioned? Secondly, on the much more useful, albeit less carved in stone, aspects of interest and rarity, a helicopter crash "downtown" is pretty remarkable for any major city. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To be sure, helicopters crash a lot around the world, albeit not on a daily basis. That being said, this is a unique locale and environment, possible lessons [to be] learned. If the government acts on the recommendations (or fails to act), that has long term worth. Well sourced. I agree with Dweller. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dweller & others. Most helicopters crash in fields; they are not supposed to crash in the middle of a metropolis, or in this case even be flying over where they crashed. The pilot should be merged, I agree. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the pilot unless he is otherwise notable on his own. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as WP:NOTIMELIMIT - even the nominator admits "the formal accident investigation has not been completed" so this nomination is premature at best. Having read the talk page and nomination I don't understand why one or two editors seem so determined to get this deleted ASAP. - Arjayay (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And read WP:GNG next time. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, highly notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above. Notable, as the first accident of its kind in London for a generation, and almost certainly of all time as no other like it has been found. Notable for being a news story breaking in many nations beyond mainland Europe. Notable for causing significant transport disruption in a major capital city. It appears that an editor or editors have issues with this article outside Wikipedia policy which should not be used as a "hook on which to hang". For the purposes of openness, I am the article creator, alongside Lugnuts, prior to a move. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This event was absolutely notable by WP:GNG no matter how many other notablilty guidelines it fails to satisfy. The event absolutely dominated most major UK news outlets for the entire day. Rolling news channels covered it exclusively for hours. The low number of deaths and injuries is irrelevant. It was a spectacular disaster which caused disruption to a portion of central London for several days. Moochocoogle (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (possibly with snow). As others note this easily meets the WP:GNG, there are at least two investigations and reports currently ongoing into this (the review ordered into helicopter flights over London and the AAIB investigation) - it is not speculation to say that there will be significant media coverage when these reports are released. Even if it isn't notable according to the latest guidelines for air accidents (which have gone through many changes), it is unarguably a notable event for London and for air transport in the United Kingdom (about a week's disruption to transport, several days intense media coverage, international media coverage and continuing national media coverage. And per all the other keeps. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2013_Vauxhall_helicopter_crash&oldid=1137518490"