Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Central Express Flight 22

Alaska Central Express Flight 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics

)

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

This is not a notable-enough accident to support its own article. This article duplicates a previously-created article that I merged to the airline article and this article does not add to the subject; it is not much more than a copy-and-paste of the edit I made to the airline article, even the access date of the reference. YSSYguy (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:AIRCRASH - covered in the airline article, not notable enough for its own. JohnCD (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, can be adequately covered under airline and airport articles.
  talk) 14:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect as content is already merged. this is a plausible search term so a redirect would be preferable to deletion.
  talk) 16:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to merged content. Could be recreated if ongoing investigation finds more. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: to merged content.
  talk) 16:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep: come on, don't be any deletionists. I don't see at all how it fails
  WP:AIRCRASH compared too other articles. KzKrann (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment ...because it
  lacks significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect Content already exists in obvious merge target, no merge is necessary, and no separate article warranted per my above thoughts. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I did try to redirect the article but my edits were twice undone by the article creator. I still favour a redirect rather than deletion; as pointed out by Beeblebrox it is a plausible name (actually more plausible than the name of the original accident article that I merged). YSSYguy (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I (obviously) agree with the redirect, you should leave it as-is until this AfD is concluded, insofar as a redirect essentially blanks the article being discussed. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have made clear that my attempts to redirect were prior to my initiating this discussion. YSSYguy (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable for an article, section in Alaska Central Express is OK as is. MilborneOne (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Beechcraft 1900#Accidents and incidents or Alaska Central Express#Accidents and Incidents as this is not notable enough to have its own article. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2010 (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.