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.
Too early to say. Until the accident investigation has reported, there is no way to know whether this incident is significant or not. Therefore judgements such as 'nothing notable about this one' and 'simple routine accident' are pure unsubstantiated speculation (as if any air accident could be ever be 'simple routine'). Some people are in such a rush to erase other people's efforts.
85.210.175.111 (
talk)
12:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Too early to say. This may not be a notable accident for now but until the inquiry determinants the cause the accident the article should stay until recommendations are realest. I can give several examples like maybe flying near a nature reserves during low flying training would be changed or to pilot training or any mechanical failure and weather which may of let to the crash but we don't know as of yet because it's been less then 24 hours and new information about the accident will come and paint a better picture of the accident. But like I said keep until the inquest has ended and then vote for deletion.
NorthHuanter (
talk)
11:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)reply
The article was started by someone else; the sockpuppet account was one of several contributors (including me). —
rybec10:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep The crash is generating quite a bit of news coverage in Britain at present, and it is rather unusual to have a crash involving an advanced US military helicopter, there could possibly be a few issues still to come out.
PatGallacher (
talk)
15:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I see no real
rush here. It's certainly not routine for an American asset to crash in the incredibly featureless Norfolk marshlands with four fatalities. So, like NorthHunter, it's a little to early to say.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
15:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment If not for
WP:RECENTISM we wouldn't be having much of a debate. There are tons of military accident accidnets like this littering the archives of
Aviation Safety Network and many of them with much bigger death tolls than 4 but no article. The difference between those and this- It happened yesterday.
...William16:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Well I think the point I'm making is that we don't regularly have USAF helicopters crash in East Anglia with four fatalities over the flattest part of the country.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
17:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Well of course it makes it
notable. It's not like a crash in Afghanistan is it? It's one of the most reliable airframes in the USAF, so if mechanical failure has occurred, this is rare. But never mind, the usual clamour and
rush to delete an article before we find out what happens is beginning, won't be long before someone links us to
WP:AIRCRASH claiming it to be some kind of holy text.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
07:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Now that's where you're wrong. Are you suggesting that the helicopter that crashed in central London was not more notable than a helicopter that crashed in a field in Wales?
The Rambling Man (
talk)
09:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep for now, review later Nothing we know about it so far makes this accident notable, but there's no hurry to make a decision. Wait until the investigation and inquest are completed.
86.5.176.168 (
talk)
17:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep for now, review later. While it was probably too soon to create the article, based on the limited information available, it is certainly too soon to delete the article - there is insufficient evidence to accurately determine its notability either way at this point.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Despite the sad deaths of the crew and loss of the helicopter, military accidents are generally not notable in their own right!!--
Petebutt (
talk)
20:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per WP:NOTTHENEWS. The collision between two RAF Grob Tutor light aircraft at Porthcawl in February 2009 had a lot of news coverage as two of the victims were schoolgirls who also happened to be cousins. This was reinforced when another tutor hit a glider a few months later killing another schoolchild. A well referenced article grew from these events but that has subsequently been deleted. I see no reason to expect that coverage of this event will be as extensive.--
Charles (
talk)
10:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Who deleted Porthcawl mid air collision because I read the report same with the two Red Arrow accidents of 2011 and the changes that were made would make the accidents notable? This accident cause is still unknown and the article stay until the inquest in compete. It makes it more odd that the aircraft is one the safety helicopters used in the US Air Force and a military crashes are common are they more common then car crashes, NO! it crashed into featherless area with no high ground or other and to say military accident would occur more during war zones and training but in some cases unlike in a war zone changes can be made to make flying safer. One more thing I would like to stay is Aviation accidents are less common in some area then others which is good and some area are slowly getting better in aviation safety I.E Russia and Asia but it's odd when it happens. Accidents happen like this is odd, that a crash would happen is the first place but more odd is the circumstances of the accident. Which has led to many questions on what caused this accident. Keep until inquest is done to deiced notability. 13:59, 8 January 2014 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.145.34.52 (
talk)
Delete sad but military flying is dangerous and they crash often but that doesnt make them particularly notable unless they hit something notable or kill somebody notable, not the case here.
MilborneOne (
talk)
19:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep a well-written article. I think four deaths in any single helicopter crash in UK it notable. The fact that it was a USAF accident on UK soil seems to make it more notable. And although it's unlikely, it may be part of a larger picture, so I'd certainly keep until the investigation is completed.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
19:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment just to note that the USAF have been based in the UK for sixty years and accidents are not that rare with British-based aircraft like this helicopter.
MilborneOne (
talk)
17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS. No indication of anything notable or of lasting consequence in the accident. We don't keep non-notable articles in case they one day become notable. -
Ahunt (
talk)
18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Yes, we should consider our
WP:READER who may wish to learn more about the Pave Hawk or the USAF deployments in the UK or the Norfolk coastline. They don't know about
WP:AIRCRASH or
WP:NOTNEWS (and would probably crack a grin at the fact that we have a main page section called "In The News"....)], nor do they care.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
20:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)reply
It would be more profitable for you and the encyclopaedia if you actually wrote in English and not ESSAYS etc. Take a step back from all that and try to see the sense here.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
09:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)reply
See, pathetic really. There are two ways to cut this. So shall we now focus on the utility of the page rather than continually fling CAPITAL LETTERS at each other?
The Rambling Man (
talk)
09:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable accident: did not involve "the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia" and there is no indication that the accident will result "in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft)." Regarding the latter clause, the article may be restored following the official inquiry if the inquiry results in significant changes as outlined. Unless and until such changes occur, this remains a non-notable, albeit tragic, incident, which is suitably recorded at
List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present).
Blackberry Sorbet (
talk •
contribs)
15:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)reply
(Thanks for introducing yet ANOTHER set of capitals) I've only responded to your !vote. Other comments have been, well, comments. This is a discussion you know. And yes, there have been other crashes, but this is a peacetime crash with four fatalities, not comparable to those you've linked to.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
15:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Perfectly comparable: crashes during operational flights which were not as a result of hostile actions. Two of the a/m crashes also involved loss of crews. Where's the difference?
Blackberry Sorbet (
talk •
contribs)
16:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete I've checked the latest news about this and it looks like there is nothing particularly significant ever since. 2-4 deaths is (still, unfortunately) a relatively frequent death toll, similar to that of private aircraft. This is already commemorated in
2014 in aviation anyway and can be expanded there further. If something important about it surfaces in the future, the article can be recreated, but so far
WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL (even though I generally believe in the zodiac astrology).
Brandmeistertalk10:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)reply
But PatGallacher argues that the event is notable because "it is rather unusual to have a crash involving an advanced US military helicopter", which is demonstrably false, and because "[t]he crash is generating quite a bit of news coverage in Britain." In the latter case, Wikipedia is "not the news" and anyway, after a few days the UK news cycle moved on and this has barely received a mention since.
Blackberry Sorbet (
talk •
contribs)
09:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Move to Draft so that this well-written article can continue to be developed and to give time for an informed assessment of whether the event is to have enduring significance. This is what
draft space is for.
Thincat (
talk)
12:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - following the initial news, there seems to be no further coverage. That may be because we are in the waiting period between incident and report but for the moment it seems to have had no knock-on effect - helicopters have not been grounded,
the site has been cleared and reopened to public. The text of this article could be put in the helicopter article and the title redirected.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
21:38, 23 January 2014 (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.