Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. D. Williams Engineering crashes
Source: 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 delete.
talk) 14:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
A. D. Williams Engineering crashes
- A. D. Williams Engineering crashes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable General Aviation crashes, Fails
]Note WP:AIRCRASH has been redirected. These are the guidelines I meant Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable per guidelines. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider Merge with article on company. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. Mjroots is correct that there is no article about A.D. Williams Engineering. Perhaps the crashes are not significant from an aviation perspective, but the impact of the two accidents is certainly significant. The first crash killed both the company's founder and its chief financial officer. Five months later, both the company's president, and the new chief financial officer, were killed. That would be a notable setback for any business. Since the article, as written, is clearly about the investigation of the two accidents, it should probably be moved to "A.D. Williams Engineering". Mandsford (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That is a possible solution, but it doesn't really look to me that the company meets ]
- Query - What part of WP:CORP do you think is not met?LeadSongDog (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Per WP:CORP, a company is notable "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" (emphasis added). I can find little secondary source references that talk about the company rather passing news coverage of the crashes. Alternatively, the guideline discusses companies that are publicly traded, but this doesn't seem to apply to this company. Hence my comment that it doesn't appear to meet the guideline. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Per
- Query - What part of WP:CORP do you think is not met?LeadSongDog (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That is a possible solution, but it doesn't really look to me that the company meets ]
- Delete two non-notable accidents, only link between company is that both aircraft had employees involved. Some information could be salvaged into a company article if the company was notable enough for its own article although nothing in the article mentions the effect on the company other that to act as a ]
- Comment - not just employees, but the top officers of the company that owned the planes.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - at least until we have a real notability guideline. Full disclosure: I've edited the article.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - notability guidelines are real and were adopted, but the shortcut link wasn't updated; it works now, and the guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Notability. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would think that except in very exceptional cases - which I don't think this is - only where aviation accidents share common or similar causes should they be joined. As accidents, neither is notable, it appears. And the company - the only thing linking both accidents and giving the combination a shot at notability - appears not to pass that hurdle. MadScot (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. At best this seems to me a minor news story, regardless of whether they should be joined into a single article, which should only be the case if they are actually discussed together in reliable sources. Anyway, the project notability guidelines mentioned above are both vague and unofficial, and have no bearing in a deletion discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although the guidelines are unofficial I think it's wrong to say they "have no bearing". They may not be sufficient for notability, but I'd say they have to be necessary. Since the implication is that there's consensus amongst a subset of editors that these criteria must be met. Any larger consensus would seem to have to include these, or higher, standards. Not every accident which meets those standards might be deemed notable, but I'd be shocked if any accident which didn't meet them could be notable. MadScot (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm one of those who helped draw them up. They're a guideline; unlike policies, guidelines guide, they don't force. You can ignore them, however, tey're there both to help and to serve as a reference to the kind of thing people with an interest in the subject believe isn't notable - at least one user actively involved over there is profesionally in aviation. Hope that clarifies, Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No, it's not even as much as a guideline. While it is certainly helpful to know the conclusions of the relevant WikiProject, we outsiders don't know without some deep looking-into what kind of a consensus formed it, which is a fairly stark contrast with any official guideline. And to MadScot, I maintain that the "guide" still doesn't have any bearing in a deletion discussion; the primary consideration for having an article on a topic has long been the general notability criterion. And although the project guide certainly states this initially, I don't believe that statements like "it involves unusual circumstances" is actually in line with this, and I doubt any broad consensus could exist for such a vague rule. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Project guidelines are a form of guideline, although perhaps I should have been clearer there. In terms of 'bearing', what guides and policies we cite - if any - for our opinions are our own choice and speak for ourselves. Sorting out the general consensus based on them is what we elect admin's for ;-). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No, it's not even as much as a guideline. While it is certainly helpful to know the conclusions of the relevant WikiProject, we outsiders don't know without some deep looking-into what kind of a consensus formed it, which is a fairly stark contrast with any official guideline. And to MadScot, I maintain that the "guide" still doesn't have any bearing in a deletion discussion; the primary consideration for having an article on a topic has long been the
- I'm one of those who helped draw them up. They're a guideline; unlike policies, guidelines guide, they don't force. You can ignore them, however, tey're there both to help and to serve as a reference to the kind of thing people with an interest in the subject believe isn't notable - at least one user actively involved over there is profesionally in aviation. Hope that clarifies, Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although the guidelines are unofficial I think it's wrong to say they "have no bearing". They may not be sufficient for notability, but I'd say they have to be necessary. Since the implication is that there's consensus amongst a subset of editors that these criteria must be met. Any larger consensus would seem to have to include these, or higher, standards. Not every accident which meets those standards might be deemed notable, but I'd be shocked if any accident which didn't meet them could be notable. MadScot (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2008 (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.