Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 New York City helicopter crash

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 keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 New York City helicopter crash

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Small aircraft or helicopter crashes are usually not notable UNLESS some person WP notable was involved/ WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indications this was a criminal act, per NYPD and city officials. One person did die, but it's no mass casualty event. No evidence this will be notable. If it turns out it was, recreate. Delete it now and recreate if we find out later that the man who died was Vladimir Putin and whatnot. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add - does not pass WP:AIRCRASH, a non-binding but persuasive essay. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You seem to violate WP:RAPID for this quick nomination. View WP:EVENTCRIT as well. The event just happened, I used 2018 New York City helicopter crash as a base, and this passed WP:AIRCRASH.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanAir88 (talk • contribs)

Comment with respect, please look at WP:AIRCRASH again. It indicates "Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-prominent." It further indicates that standalone articles of light aircraft accidents only warrant a standalone article where the individual who died has their own WP article or the accident results in a significant change to aircraft design or operations. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The event just happened. WP:RAPID still apply. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RAPID goes both ways. A event shouldn't have an article when it isn't notable yet....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RAPID does not go both ways or else there would be explanation along the lines of what you are saying. The closest thing I could find is WP:DEADLINENOW. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some examples of similar articles include: 2002 Tampa Cessna 172 crash, 2002 Pirelli Tower airplane crash, 2014 Wichita King Air crash, and 2015 Colombia helicopter crash. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any reason why this should be deleted. As said with the above reply (not comment), you seem to be violating WP:RAPID. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.59.145 (talk)
Note Helicopter crashed into AXA Equitable Center. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the content of the article can be merged there? —C.Fred (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:RAPID. The article was already created so we should wait a little to see if it become notable Moreover it already meets WP:DIVERSE it was reported by news outlets all over the world [1],[2] --Shrike (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Event just occurred.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice. The article is here, and there's a good chance it would just get recreated in the short term if we delete it now. IMO, the best course of action is to wait a while and see if there is notability to the event beyond it being a current event. If there isn't, then we can delete after the immediate attention from users has gone down. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Light helicopter accidents like this are very common globally, with many hundreds of them per year, stictly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. This one only got press coverage due to the prominent location where the media could see it and the media's obsession with aircraft accidents being somehow special. If one person had died in a car accident in NYC it would not have got any press at all. - Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain: A minor one-person fatality crash, but notable location and coverage frenzy on news and social media. Definitely an interesting border case. My closest position on this would be "wait and see" per WP:RAPID and WP:RUSH.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 23:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: There good questions being raised by this crash like why it was flying in less than ideal weather and allowed to go into or very near restricted airspace. After we get more info, we should revisit the issue as to whether or not to delete this article. Omega13a (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fatal aviation crashes or crashes with a hull loss always meet WP:NOTE. - AEMoreira042281 (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A helicopter crashing into a building in New York City is a pretty important event. That's why it was national news. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 03:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Number of references available. Seems notable, at least for now. --Edcolins (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Normally I would say delete for things like these per a splash in the news. The reason I would keep this for now is that building crashes involving aircraft are uncommon if not rare. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MergeWhile it was an important event I don't think its notable enough for it's own article, I'd recommend it be merged with the AXA building article. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JustAnotherWikiUser0816: What do you mean "I don't think"? Do you have reasoning to believe a merge is the way to go? Also, that building had its own article and its own purpose in the wikipedia. The building should not be known as "the building with the crash". AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event is notable for the amount of coverage that it generated, along with the calls for reforms in Manhattan airspace. The number of fatalities should not be a factor in determining notability. Cocoaguy ここがいい 16:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - not a notable aircrash as not Wikinotable person was involved. This can be adquately handled at the article on the building it crashed onto. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: I do not want to argue with an admin, but there is more to the story than someone dying. The person who died may not have been notable, but the impact this crash will have on New York's policies is what makes thes stick out. Also, it received global coverage per WP:DIVERSE. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: Firstly, forget the admin bit. I'm here as an editor and not acting in any administrative capacity.

General aviation crashes are generally not notable enough to sustain articles on Wikipedia with a few exceptions. If a person who is notable enough to sustain a Wikipedia article is involved (e.g the 2019 Piper PA-46 Malibu crash which killed Emiliano Sala). A mid-air or ground collision involving a scheduled flight (Court Line Flight 95) or military aircraft (1974 Norfolk mid-air collision). Other accidents may be notable depending on circumstances (Vauxhall helicopter crash, 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash).

On the face of it, this accident does not meet the threshold at the moment. I haven't got a WP:CRYSTALBALL, but it is possible that once the investigation into the accident is complete, changes to procedures and/or policies will take place. If that happens, then the case for a stand-alone article has more strength. Until such time, the accident falls below the notability threshold for a stand-alone article. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: I respect your opinion. However, this helicopter crashed into a building in New York City. A place where an aircraft hitting a building has history and a bigger impact. Governor Andrew Cuomo gave an interview yesterday on how this crash impacts New Yorkers. Donald Trump, The United States president, even talked about this helicopter crash. As cocoa guy said, this amount of coverage and call for reforms in the airspace make it notable.

Here are some examples of other incidents since you were bringing up some: 2002 Tampa Cessna 172 crash, 2002 Pirelli Tower airplane crash, 2014 Wichita King Air crash, and 2015 Colombia helicopter crash. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've said my 2p worth, and was happy to give you a more detailed rationale for my !vote. Let's let the closer decide the outcome. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into AXA Equitable Center. Mjroots's second comment is convincing for me, I think that we can merge for now and decide whether we can split this again later. epicgenius (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait for a merge per WP:RAPID: As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. It then goes into alternatives to deletion, but this isn't the place for that discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. A merger discussion can be had on the article's talk page if the article stays this small. Dream Focus 23:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Incident happened recently, and more information may possibly appear in the next few days. If we delete the article, it will have to get recreated (likely). Foxnpichu (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - We should wait a week, see if it is still relevant, and then make a decision on whether we should delete the page. Calicodragon (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, add images, expand with details. This event is notable enough to warrant its own page. Made international headlines, where aircraft was flying in a restricted zone; this rarely occurs, especially in a large city. Tinton5 (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG entirely non notable but tragic accident. IF, a very BIG IF, there is a reason for notability in the future, then an article can be written then!!--Petebutt (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it we have this stupid battle every time some OCD editor thinks that every aircraft incident needs an article. Common sense MUST prevail or we will be supporting wikipedia which becomes awash with non-notable chaff!!--Petebutt (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Petebutt: Please be civil. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was me being VERY restrained!!--Petebutt (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON, i note that early on in this afd, article creator accuses nominator of WP:RAPID, sorry but crash ocurred on 10 June and when was article created? 10 June, also does not meet WP:EVENT as it does not have "lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time.", also WP:NOTNEWS comes to mind as although a tragic crash in a major city this is a local event. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. May not be notable enough for its own article, but there are clearly enough sources to keep the content which can be merged elsewhere, and this is an editorial decision that should be made outside AfD. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:53, 18 June 2019 (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.