Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Long Island Sound 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 delete. There's no such thing as a merge and delete, and the crash of the plane is not notable in any way, shape or form, despite it being owned by Pat Robertson. Had he been on board, sure. Otherwise, no dice.  RasputinAXP  c 18:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Long Island Sound Plane Crash

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Non-notable plane crash that only killed two pilots and injured 3, only has an article because the plane was owned by

• Merge and delete. Highly non-notable. Bastique▼^parler _voir 00:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete seems appropriate. I doubt anyone would look up this event on its own without thinking to check Robertson first. HumbleGod 00:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete per above. Dionyseus 01:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep somewhat notable. --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 04:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to
  talk. o.o;; 04:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and delete - doesn't seem to be notable on its own. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 04:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fatal plane crash involving a famous person. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I did not notice that the airplane was merely owned by Robertson. I have no real opinion if the crash of small jets like this are notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but ask User:Storm05 if they want to submit it to Wikinews --Astrokey44 09:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (delete is then illegal per
  GFDL), or simply delete. Just zis Guy you know? 10:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete minor plane crash which only pretends to involve a famous person. WilyD 12:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --PresN 21:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & No Merge it doesn't even arise to the point of notability within the Robertson article. Bejnar 22:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a notable plane crash! Storm05 14:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In addtion, yes small plane crashes happen every day, but of this case, this one is clearly notable enough for an article. Storm05 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or submit to wikinews. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 15:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to a section in Pat Robertson. Small plane crashes are not notable on their own. CrazyC83 16:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. I agree with CrazyC. Mention it in the Pat Robertson article, it's not notable enough on its own. --
  §HurricaneERIC§ archive 18:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Wrong, if it involves a famous person and makes headlines then they are notable which is the reason that this article should be kept. Storm05 16:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is Pat Robertson famous? I've never heard of him and he wasn't even on the plane. --

§HurricaneERIC§ archive 18:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• The problem here is not that Pat Robertson isn't famous, but that the crash doesn't involve Pat Robertson. Roughly speaking, this article has no more encyclopaedic value than A tree Jon Stewart once saw. A otherwise non-notable event that involves a famous person in an extremely peripheral way is not encyclopaedic. WilyD 21:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sorry, but it's not really that notable. If it's any consolation, it's good formatting and well done, but there's little point to it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WilyD (and a note). I saw this article because I keep an eye on Storms contribs and almost AFD'd it myself. I saw this AFD because Storm05 is
  TimL 21:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• NOOOOOOOO!!!, You guys are all wrong, this plane crash is completly notable in every way!. Storm05 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In addtion I found more useful info on the crash. [1] Storm05 13:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• transwiki to wikinews. Can cross-link from Pat Robertson. — brighterorange (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikinews. Just like that explosion in Manhattan...well, you know the deal. Or, merge information to Pat Robertson. Take your pick--Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 14:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I took a stroll and found a another small plane crash and it had an article. So you tell me why does that small plane crash deserved and article and why this one dont? (I beleve that this one should stay regardless of what size of the plane.) Storm05 15:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- by the way someone had listed another notalbe

low or no death

plane article for deletion if you guys are interested.

• Weak keep. The incident generated enough information to allow an interesting article to be written. It has been said that we should consider not just whether an article would be expected to be included in a general encyclopedia, but whether it would be expected to be included in a specialist encyclopedia related to the topic. In other words, if there was an encyclopedia of aircraft crashes, would this be in it? I think it probably would be. Johntex\^talk 16:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a decent sized article with good info and sources to back up all points has been created. This shows it attracted a lot of media and did not go unnoticed on the whole. - Erebus555 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I don't see anything particularly notable about this. If the article is kept, it should certainly be renamed. Something like Crash of Lear N182K would be a much better name. I've already gone ahead and deleted some erroneous cats -- a lear is not an airliner. As a side comment, the author of the article appears to be campainging for support on people's user pages, which is always a turn-off. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a very minor incident. Mention some appropriate details in the Robertson article. Oh, and I only saw this when I checked to see what was going on at the JetBlue page and saw the apparently emphatic contributor's note linking to this AfD from that one. I guess that's not all that notable since I see above that this one links back too JetBlue. GassyGuy 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this is now deletepedia, apparently. User:Raccoon Fox Talk 23:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote. You're comment adds nothing to the discussion.

TimL 02:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Very Weak delete Sorry, Storm05, please don't dislike me for this, but it's not really that notable. Sorry again. →Cyclone1→ 23:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak delete same as above. Very sorry.--Lionheart Omega 22:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; nothing notable here. Wikipedia is not a memorial, or a database of aircraft crashes, & so on. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:13, 16 July 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.