Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002 Tampa Plane 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Plane Crash

Utterly non-notable incident, not even titled properly ("Plane Crash" is not a proper noun - these crashes happen all the time and are not major incidents with only minor news coverage. Chacor 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also [1]. Strong delete, or redirect/merge Milan into Pirelli Tower. Chacor 15:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- this is a notable plane crash. Storm05 15:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Planes don't crash into buildings "all the time". BoojiBoy 15:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per both above. --
  Guinnog 15:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Milan Plane Crash is mentioned in Pirelli Tower. The Tampa crash is most certainly non-notable. Chacor 15:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete not notable, tiny plane with a 15 yr old child who died? Wikipedia isn't a news archive, is it?--Andeh 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible merge, and I wouldn't call it completely non-notable. I actually remember this event being on the news. It's probably not worthy of its own article, due to lack of much occurring, but what about having Plane crashes in Florida or Plane crashes in 2002 for this sort of purpose? There is some decent information there, and if it's deleted then the info is gone. Having it in a broader page could work. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Per the link given above below the nomination, he has tried to include it on a page it didn't belong. Chacor 15:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, maybe that page wouldn't work. What if the crashes were treated how we do Hurricane seasons? It would list every one in the year, and give links to crashes that already have articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Both plane crashes aroused fears of a repeat of the
  September 11th attacks and security of aircraft. Which makes both crashes notable. (see the sources in both articles). Storm05 15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• No, they don't. A boy stealing a plane and crashing it is not notable, and
  WP:NOT a lot of things, including a memorial and a news service. Chacor 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment Yes they are and the article does not violate

WP:NOT. Storm05 15:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Chacor 15:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Both articles does not violate that ether and they are notable (read the sources!). Storm05 15:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Mahathir Mohammad was attacked with pepper spray last week. BBC reported on this. But there isn't a July 2006 pepper attack on Mahathir article. WP:NOT a memorial, WP:NOT news source. Chacor 15:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment- And the answer again that those aritcles does not violate
  WP:NOT in anyway and these are notable because of the coverage and the fears aroused because the time period of those two incidents that took place. Storm05 15:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Unindented. You are not getting my point. News coverage does not equals notable. Chacor 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- I got your point , but in reality those plane crashes are notable. Storm05 15:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are they notable? The Milan one may be notable, but it isn't notable enough for an article - indeed, Pirelli Tower deals with it quite well. The Tampa one is utterly non-notable. Chacor 15:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- okay, first both aroused fears of another
  September 11th style attacks, both aroused concern of aircraft and airspace security and both attacted an national and worldwide media. In all that makes both plane crashes notable. Storm05 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have not heard of the Tampa incident, that clearly did not attract worldwide media. The pilot was a 15yo. Sept 11? Please. The Tampa incident is really non-notable. Chacor 15:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-It did attracted national and world wide media because of the fears aroused after the incident. Storm05 16:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tampa crash, merge content from Milan crash to Pirelli Tower. A crash of a private aircraft with one fatality isn't notable IMO and the Milan crash would be more appropriate in the Tower's article.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Just because there was one fatality does not hide the fact that the incident was notable. Storm05 16:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, one fatality displays the fact it wasn't notable. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- no it does not, notabilty based on death toll is irrelvent. Storm05 16:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- again, both plane crashes aroused fears of another september 11th style attack and attracted a large media coverage because of those fears. Storm05 16:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• But little still happened, which is why I think it should be part of a broader Plane crashes in 2002 article. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- They can be part of the broader Plane Crashes in 2002 article, but they still are notable. Storm05 16:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge where appropriate. I appreciate the concerns about notability. However, multiple, independent, non-trivial media coverage resulted from these unusual events. I believe this qualifies as notable, though I would not be opposed to streamlining and merging. Scorpiondollprincess 16:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry to chase this, but under that criteria, a July 2006 pepper spray attack on Mahathir would be warranted. Chacor 16:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- that July 2006 pepper spray attack on Mahathir is irrelvent to this discussion and is a compeletly different event. Storm05 16:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Tampa plane crash was notable enough because of the fears of terrorism it evoked that I remember it clearly. If the criteria for keeping is worldwide media coverage, then I will rescind my vote if it does not meet required criteria. Mattisse 16:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I live in Scotland and I heard about it. --
  Guinnog 16:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per above. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --Edgelord 16:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 45th edit, mostly to other AFD discussions[reply]

• Strong Delete All These plane crashes are utterly non-notable from an encyclopedic point of view. The reasoning that these subjects should have their own article "because it reminded people of 9/11" means that 9/11 is encyclopedically notable and not these incidents. Wikipedia is not a news report database, and as I keep saying, there are many stories (even ones which receive worldwide coverage which people in Scotland hear about) in the news media that are not encyclopedically notable. Widespread media coverage is not guarantee of notability. This is not the the myth of
  1994 RAF Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre. These were not large scale air disasters, but they both had serious long-lasting effects on much broader and vital contexts (US-Italian relations in the first instance, and the British counter-terrorism in Northern Ireland in the second). The two crashes in this afd did not. Will the general public care much about the two afd incidents in 100 yrs time or even 10 yrs time? Some people seem to want to put everything that's reported in the news media in wikipedia, but that's not what an encyclopedia is for. (Try Wikinews instead) Bwithh 17:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment- These articles are inegible for wikinews because that site only covers current events. As for the encyclopedially notable part, these plane crashes are notable enough for any encyclopedia. Storm05 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting Transwiki-ing. I'm suggesting that people wanting to write articles on non-encyclopedic news stories should try Wikinews instead. I seriously doubt that these crashes are "notable enough for any encyclopedia". Maybe an aviation-specific encyclopedia. Or antiwikipedia. Bwithh 17:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per bwithh, pretty much what I was going to say. Recury 17:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment-Hey, those articles written in a way that is appicable to an encyclopedia. Storm05 17:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bwithh... very persuasive argument.--Isotope23 17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment-these plane crashes are notable, and sorry theres no such a thing as an encyclopedic point of view. Storm05 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-Also theres no limit on what topic that people can cover (including these plane crashes). Storm05 17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, notability or non-notability of these incidents is merely a matter of opinion. Sorry, but Bwithh has made a very compelling argument. These plane crashes have no demonstrated long-term effect or impact even 4 years after they happened. There is no reason to believe they will have more impact or "notability" as time progresses.--Isotope23 17:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment, there are lots of articles on this encyclopedia that have no long term effects even after four years. Also theres is no limt on what topic that can be covered on this encyclopedia. And this encyclopedia is not bound by time regardless how compelling that users argument is. Storm05 17:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, that is a straw man argument... the existance of "A" does not jusfify the existence of "B". Looks like we will just have to agree to disagree Storm05, unless some more compelling argument for retaining these articles is made.--Isotope23 18:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. wikipediatrix 18:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I remember hearing about this when it happened. Nothing has reminded me of it until today. It had no long term impact- or even a short term impact. It was forgotten within a couple of weeks. It remided people of 9/11? A toy plane hitting a wooden block tower would as well. Plane crashes happen all the time. 1 death and no impact makes it non-notable. --PresN 18:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep with comment. I partly agree with Storm05, but also with some of Bwithh's comments.

1. 1. Both of these incidents made international news at the time because they occurred not very long after 9/11/01, and because both of them involved planes crashing into buildings.
   2. Small plane crashes do occur every day, but plane crashes into buildings are quite rare, which makes these incidents more notable than they would otherwise be.
   3. As PresN has stated, nothing much happened so their importance as news was transient, and they have been forgotten by most of us. The articles seem to overemphasize the importance of the events.
   4. Nevertheless, they are verifiable events, uncommon in nature, and remarkable for their timing—so that's a reason to keep, possibly trim them down a bit, and maybe merge them.

-- Slowmover 20:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All per Slowmover. The 9/11 context makes it very notable. hateless 20:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Tampa plane crash article. It was international headlines news when it occured due to the panic it sparked of a terrorist attack. I'm putting in a Weak Keep for the other article, it's verifiable and reasonably notable for certain people. I can't think of a good reason not to have these articles here. -- Darksun 21:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, utterly notable just like American Airlines Flight 587. Gazpacho 22:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That crash killed 265 people, and I've heard of it. I haven't heard of this two. Chacor 02:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I heard of both when they happened. The significance was the historical context rather than the bodycount. Gazpacho 07:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT - before you "vote", think of this. Did you know what the articles were about as soon as you came here? Or did you have to read it? That should say enough about whether this is really notable such that it's remembered after a long time. Chacor 02:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't see what relevance my faulty memory has with being a notability guideline. hateless 03:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now, if
      2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was AFD'd, you'd know what it was without looking, right? So clearly if this doesn't evoke memories about the incident, it's not notable enough. Chacor 04:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • If the Tampa crash article was named "2002 teenager crashes small plane into a tower", then I'd remember it without clicking. I fail to see how me not remembering the location of the crash makes the whole incident less notable. Also, do you really want to add another subjective test for notability? Haven't we had enough of them? hateless 07:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment, Both of these crashes are notable since they (again) arouse fears of another september 11th style attack and fears of terrorists using small airplanes as wepons, the security of airspace over a major city and security of small aircarft which is always the case in the post 9/11 world. Storm05 17:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I recall both of these incidents. Given that they were a part of the post-9/11 hysteria and were most definitely reported on by news outlets, I think these were perfectly notable. - Bootstoots 18:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete'
  ^{wat's sup} 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep The Tampa plane crash is notable due to the proximity and similarity to 9/11. The event made big news at the time. Notable.
• Keep. Fatal aviation accidents seem notable. Both of these accidents attracted media attention. Cedars 06:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - There are hundreds of fatal air crashes worldwide yearly. Exactly how notable are some of them? Not at all. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Long Island Sound Plane Crash. Chacor 07:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, mainly non-notable plane crash, we can't write an article of every plane crash in history. --
  Chat | Contribs) 13:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment-Wikipedia is not restricted to any topic or event. Storm05 13:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is. You won't find articles on August 2006 possible development of tropical system 91L.INVEST, for example. Chacor 13:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment-That is a compelety different event and is not relevant to this discussion at all. Face it, you are just over-reacting and mis-interpeting the rules of wikipedia. Storm05 14:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your accusation has no grounds and almost certainly violates Wikipedia policy (civility).
          Be civil. Your tone is becoming desperate and uncivil. Chacor 14:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Comment-Uh?, my reponse does not even come close as being uncivil. Storm05 14:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Per
              WP:CIV: "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another". You have clearly accused me. Also, to your point about it being irrelevant: your "Wikipedia is not restricted" is then also irrelevant. Chacor 14:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • Comment-"Wikipedia is not restricted is relevant. Storm05 14:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • And, in reply to your assertion, if the article on 91L were to be created, it'd be deleted. Wikipedia is restricted. Chacor 14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In reply, to that discussion, 91L will be deleted becasue
                    WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia meaning theres no limit of what events or topics that can be covered. Storm05 14:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
                    ]
                    • I'm not talking about crystal-balling. I'm talking about a fully-encyclopedic article written on what was the possible development of this system, if it never does. It'd still get deleted. Chacor 14:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Thats a complelty different situation. Storm05 14:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • And how is that different? It's still a non-notable event which would get deleted. Chacor 14:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • 91L doesnt even qualify as an event. Storm05 14:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • And how is that so? Chacor 14:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Wikipedia is not an experiment in rule making- Ill leave your last response to those at Wikiproject Tropical cyclones. Storm05 14:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
                                ]
                                • I'm just noting that your reasoning is flawed, and the fact you have to resort to policy to defend flawed reasoning... Chacor 14:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • My reasoning is not flawed. Storm05 14:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • I rest my case. Chacor 14:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All per Bwithh (again). Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-The Tampa and Milan crashes are notable even though there were a few deaths. (fears of a repear 9/11 style attack, security of airspace over a major city and etc). Storm05 16:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CNN broadcast non-stop, so any minor event can, and in this case did, make the news. All the refs show is that the event was reported. There's nothing to suggest it was anything important. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • May be true re CNN, but these events were reported internationally by other media; not just CNN filler material. (Some of us don't rely on CNN for our news.) -- Slowmover 14:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Both received massive coverage in the wake of 9/11 and caused fears of new attacks. Part of the historical record. --JJay 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Both were notable crashes. We don't need a massive death toll to make a plane crash or incident notable, see Air France Flight 358 and Air Transat Flight 236. Carlossuarez46 19:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bwithh. Eusebeus 11:08, 8 August 2006 (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.