Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canley Vale Airtex 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. NW (Talk) 11:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canley Vale Airtex plane crash

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

This article describes what appears to be an unremarkable, non-notable common accident, which seems to fail

WP:AIRCRASH. Crum375 (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as per nom no sign of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and
WP:NOTNEWS. I actually know several people who work for the company concerned, but objectively this is not notable enough to stand on its own. The mention at Airtex Aviation is sufficient IMO. YSSYguy (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:NOTNEWS, non-notable aircraft crash. - Ahunt (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Airtex Aviation. Unlikely to ever justify a stand alone article, but the operator article gives too-brief coverage.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, adequately covered in Airtex Aviation article. Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - An unfortunate crash, but fails
WP:AIRCRASH and is non-notable. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Orderinchaos 10:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's my opinion that all air crashes are notable. KzKrann (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"All X are notable"

WP:NPOV in deciding any of these are worthy of an article, especially considering the real-life harm that can be done to individuals by having a top 5 website document their company's failings and misfortunes, but not those of their competitors. Orderinchaos 17:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I was'nt saying all air crashes was notable. I just said that's my opinion. You cannot change my opinion. KzKrann (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the entire purpose of discussion to change each others opinions. If you are truly unwilling to consider other editors' arguments, they in turn will be justified in ignoring yours. That way lies madness. So instead, we collaborate, offer each other both reasoning and evidence, and take the time to consider what others offer. Sometimes we change their minds. Sometimes they change ours. It's the Wikipedia way. If you are unable to accept having your opinion changed, WP is definitely the wrong endeavour for you. Indeed, many if not all editors consider that it is downright

WP:UNCIVIL to announce on a talk page that you have your fingers in your ears. Please reconsider if that's really what you meant to say. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, but since i think it's notable, i cannot just suddenly say it isn't just because no one else is with me. KzKrann (talk) 09:53, 30 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.