| Revision as of 19:24, 7 September 2010 editMickMacNee (talk | contribs)23,386 edits →2010 New Zealand Fletcher FU24 crash: rps← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:06, 7 September 2010 edit undoWikireader41 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,522 edits →2010 New Zealand Fletcher FU24 crashNext edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| *'''Keep'''. per Lugnuts. and for the last time MMN stop misusing ]. it clearly does NOT apply here. Moreover it is ] and the will of the community cannot be ignored. it is very clear from recent debates on air crashes that the community wants these articles kept.--] (]) 18:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. per Lugnuts. and for the last time MMN stop misusing ]. it clearly does NOT apply here. Moreover it is ] and the will of the community cannot be ignored. it is very clear from recent debates on air crashes that the community wants these articles kept.--] (]) 18:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *:Why don't you do something with ] then? The more you try and ] these debates like this, saying the same thing at any Afd on any crash with any plane with any death toll in any situation and with any kind of coverage, without doing anything about that redlink, the less credibility you have for claiming to speak for the community. ] (]) 19:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | *:Why don't you do something with ] then? The more you try and ] these debates like this, saying the same thing at any Afd on any crash with any plane with any death toll in any situation and with any kind of coverage, without doing anything about that redlink, the less credibility you have for claiming to speak for the community. ] (]) 19:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::: well I am sick and tired of ] being used as the SOLE argument for starting these AfDs and then invariably these AfDs failing and people like you refusing to get the message per ] . I think Mjroots is a respected admin who has an interest in Aviation related articles and he is working on something. meanwhile how many failed AfDs before you see the folly of your way of thinking. or is that too much to expect from somebody who has been blocked > 20 times ????--] (]) 20:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:06, 7 September 2010
2010 New Zealand Fletcher FU24 crash
- 2010 New Zealand Fletcher FU24 crash (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 article's notability appears to rest on the presence of international news coverage, although they of course are all simply repeating the primary source coverage, suggesting this is a case of notability through bombardment using many newspapers. Given that newspapers will always give coverage to accidents where multiple tourists are killed, and none of the dead are apparently wiki-notable, and apparently neither was the skydiving company, then I think this is a pretty weak claim for showing this article is anything more than just a news article, here today, forgotten tomorrow. I cannot see how this is ever going to be anything other than an orphan, it has pretty much no relevance to any other article except the plane model, and possibly the glacier, so I see absolutely no point keeping it for all time. As ever, if anything historically notable emerges, such as a change in skydiving laws because of it, then I have no issue with recreation with the article reflecting that. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Worst plane-crash accident in New Zealand for a long time and will have lasting notability, which is covered by the WP:RS meeting WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Lugnuts. In terms of death toll, this is the seventh biggest air crash in New Zealand history, and the biggest since 1989. Hardly a "here today, forgotten tomorrow" incident.Grutness...wha? 23:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is that really a relevant factoid though? When you get into such small death tolls, due to the nature of NZ aviation no doubt, such rankings are pretty irrelevant it seems. That is well illustrated by this list, where you can go up and down the rankings by many places, just by having one more, or one less, death, and which is in the most part, made up of forgotten, non-notable incidents (except maybe to create a basic list of all deadly NZ aircrashes). And when the NZHerald profiled "New Zealand's worst air disasters" in 2008, even it could only bother to list 6 incidents, with the bottom one having eight deaths, one less than this. This article exists due to NEWS coverage. When you eliminate that as proof of historical notability, you get to the reality of what historical notability is all about - neatly demonstrated by the fact that of those 6 accidents, Misplaced Pages only bothers to cover the top two with stand alone articles. MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Three of the other six, actually, not two - and a fourth one used to have but is now a section in another article. Not that that's particularly relevant given that what is or isn't elsewhere on Misplaced Pages is not a good argument in a deletion process debate. And you're getting into circular arguments if you say that a list of notable historic crashes is only notable because of the media interest in it, when the only reason for the media interest is that they were notable. Air crashes of this type are rare in New Zealand, and as such, and because of the size of this one, it stands out as being notable. Given that one air crash smaller was on the list (presumably the one about seven years ago in mid-Canterbury), there is indication that smaller crashes than this one are not likely to be forgotten quickly (as such this meets one of the criteria at the guideline - not policy, but guideline - WP:AIRCRASH). If the consensus is deletion, I'd suggest that information from this be merged into the Fox Glacier article. Grutness...wha? 07:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- AVIATION is not a WP:Guideline. And as explained in WP:OSE, if you state that statistic x is a mark of notability, and the presence/absence of other directly comparable stuff on Misplaced Pages does not appear to support that, then it is a valid argument. Even if it is 3 out of 6. I do not dispute there is continuing media interest due to rarity of deadly aircrashes in NZ - but this really does only support the notability of a list topic per WP:N, such as List of air accidents in New Zealand by death toll. The ongoing coverage is not directly addressed towards just one of those incidents, which can be re-ordered just thru one extra death. If this isn't true, then there should be some evidence that there has been ongoing signficiant and direct coverage of that 8 dead crash, both before and after it got dumped from the 'top 6'. MickMacNee (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- "AVIATION is not a WP:Guideline" Neither is the Bombardment (BOMBARDMENT! BOMBARDMENT!!) and the 10999Newspapers you cited. Lugnuts (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- "AVIATION is not a guideline" - I never said it was.WP: AIRCRASH is the relevant guideline. It's listed as such at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aviation/Notability, in the section "Guidelines by subject", and is further referred to as a guideline in its first sentence. In any case, since it's clearly not a policy, if you say it's not a guideline either than what is it? A handy rule-of-thumb? Or just a suggestion? In either case, it becomes a far weaker argument for deleting this article. Grutness...wha? 21:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- "AVIATION is not a WP:Guideline" Neither is the Bombardment (BOMBARDMENT! BOMBARDMENT!!) and the 10999Newspapers you cited. Lugnuts (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- AVIATION is not a WP:Guideline. And as explained in WP:OSE, if you state that statistic x is a mark of notability, and the presence/absence of other directly comparable stuff on Misplaced Pages does not appear to support that, then it is a valid argument. Even if it is 3 out of 6. I do not dispute there is continuing media interest due to rarity of deadly aircrashes in NZ - but this really does only support the notability of a list topic per WP:N, such as List of air accidents in New Zealand by death toll. The ongoing coverage is not directly addressed towards just one of those incidents, which can be re-ordered just thru one extra death. If this isn't true, then there should be some evidence that there has been ongoing signficiant and direct coverage of that 8 dead crash, both before and after it got dumped from the 'top 6'. MickMacNee (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Three of the other six, actually, not two - and a fourth one used to have but is now a section in another article. Not that that's particularly relevant given that what is or isn't elsewhere on Misplaced Pages is not a good argument in a deletion process debate. And you're getting into circular arguments if you say that a list of notable historic crashes is only notable because of the media interest in it, when the only reason for the media interest is that they were notable. Air crashes of this type are rare in New Zealand, and as such, and because of the size of this one, it stands out as being notable. Given that one air crash smaller was on the list (presumably the one about seven years ago in mid-Canterbury), there is indication that smaller crashes than this one are not likely to be forgotten quickly (as such this meets one of the criteria at the guideline - not policy, but guideline - WP:AIRCRASH). If the consensus is deletion, I'd suggest that information from this be merged into the Fox Glacier article. Grutness...wha? 07:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is that really a relevant factoid though? When you get into such small death tolls, due to the nature of NZ aviation no doubt, such rankings are pretty irrelevant it seems. That is well illustrated by this list, where you can go up and down the rankings by many places, just by having one more, or one less, death, and which is in the most part, made up of forgotten, non-notable incidents (except maybe to create a basic list of all deadly NZ aircrashes). And when the NZHerald profiled "New Zealand's worst air disasters" in 2008, even it could only bother to list 6 incidents, with the bottom one having eight deaths, one less than this. This article exists due to NEWS coverage. When you eliminate that as proof of historical notability, you get to the reality of what historical notability is all about - neatly demonstrated by the fact that of those 6 accidents, Misplaced Pages only bothers to cover the top two with stand alone articles. MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Grutness - I was quoting MickMcNee, not yourself. IE he's using two "guidelines" that aren't actually guidelines at all, in his deletion rationale, and then countering WP:AIRCRASH with that same logic. Lugnuts (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I of course meant AIRCRASH. Despite what the text says, it is not a WP:Guideline, it is an WP:ESSAY, and is tagged as such. Which means that it has not yet been demonstrated to have sufficient support to be cited in discussions like Afd with any degree of confidence that it reflects wide community consensus, and/or does not contradict already existing Policies and Guidelines, such as NOT#NEWS. And not that I'm even sure which criteria you meant, but if you actually read the essay, just meeting one criteria of it is not a green light to create an article. MickMacNee (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Since it's an essay, a new article doesn't necessarily have to mean any of those criteria. This isn't policy or even apparently a guideline. it's just an essay. If new articles were created according to the stipulations of all essays across this site, we'd have some very odd articles indeed. A far more relevant criterion might be the one at WP:NOTNEWS, which states Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events. outine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I do not see exactly how this would apply to the biggest air crash in a country in 21 years. This cannot be described as "routine news coverage", and is certainly of enduring notability. Grutness...wha? 06:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's routine in the sense that it is coverage that is always going to happen for such an event. Simply being in the news, does not convey notability. NOT#NEWS has been used to delete a hell of a lot more things than people just trying to record the day's sports results or celebrity gossip, as detailed in WP:EVENT. And I've already addressed the idea that 'biggest' in this situation means anything except a nice byline. MickMacNee (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Since it's an essay, a new article doesn't necessarily have to mean any of those criteria. This isn't policy or even apparently a guideline. it's just an essay. If new articles were created according to the stipulations of all essays across this site, we'd have some very odd articles indeed. A far more relevant criterion might be the one at WP:NOTNEWS, which states Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events. outine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I do not see exactly how this would apply to the biggest air crash in a country in 21 years. This cannot be described as "routine news coverage", and is certainly of enduring notability. Grutness...wha? 06:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I of course meant AIRCRASH. Despite what the text says, it is not a WP:Guideline, it is an WP:ESSAY, and is tagged as such. Which means that it has not yet been demonstrated to have sufficient support to be cited in discussions like Afd with any degree of confidence that it reflects wide community consensus, and/or does not contradict already existing Policies and Guidelines, such as NOT#NEWS. And not that I'm even sure which criteria you meant, but if you actually read the essay, just meeting one criteria of it is not a green light to create an article. MickMacNee (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, aircraft crashes during skydiving ops are not infrequent and nothing about this one makes it stand out. It completely fails to meet guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH and also falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS; while terrible for those directly involved, this is another brief flash-in-the-pan that will soon fade into obscurity. At the risk of my own falling foul of WP:OTHERSTUFF and related policies, another article about an NZ GA aircraft crash (a chartered Piper Seneca that crashed in 1988 that also killed nine), was deleted a few months ago for failing to meet standards of notability. YSSYguy (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Have you the Afd link? It could be informative. PS, AIRCRASH is not a WP:Guideline. MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have thought to post it; Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/1988 North Island plane crash. I am aware that AIRCRASH is as yet not a set of guidelines (I could hardly be unaware after other recent air crash AfD discussions), but as the French say "faute de mieux". Anyway, back to this discussion; this happened on the weekend and it's now Monday in Australia, where media coverage has basically ceased despite there being an Australian among the dead. YSSYguy (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Sad, unusually high death toll for NZ, but really not that notable in Misplaced Pages terms. It might possibly be worth revisiting this next year if the aviation inquiry finds anything of note. --Avenue (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- To clarify my position, I think the essential information here is worth covering, and I agree with Grutness that merging it into the Fox Glacier article would make sense if this article is deleted (since that article covers the township as well as the glacier itself). I'd also be happy to see a List of air accidents in New Zealand by death toll. I just don't think we need a separate article on this crash. --Avenue (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Lugnuts. And to annoy User:MickMacNee, who seems to nominate for deletion EVERY new article regarding accidents where people lost their lives and which are NOTABLE! (Gabinho 08:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC))
- Oh right. I forgot the golden rule of Misplaced Pages that when you type out the name of a Guideline in CAPITALS!!! it means you REALLY REALLY understand it. You can make as many WP:TROLL / WP:PERNOM votes as you like wherever you like as far as I'm concered, far from annoying me, it actualy helps my cause by continually underscoring your cluelessness about policy and Afd process in general to other editors and closing admins, meaning that if it's not happening already, you will rapidly become a very ignorable editor, even if you break with tradition and actually say something intelligent and worthwhile one day. MickMacNee (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Um... perhaps you both need to take a couple of deep breaths here? Irrespective of what is or isn't a guideline, WP:CIVIL is a policy. Grutness...wha? 05:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh right. I forgot the golden rule of Misplaced Pages that when you type out the name of a Guideline in CAPITALS!!! it means you REALLY REALLY understand it. You can make as many WP:TROLL / WP:PERNOM votes as you like wherever you like as far as I'm concered, far from annoying me, it actualy helps my cause by continually underscoring your cluelessness about policy and Afd process in general to other editors and closing admins, meaning that if it's not happening already, you will rapidly become a very ignorable editor, even if you break with tradition and actually say something intelligent and worthwhile one day. MickMacNee (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. How does a smaller encyclopedia help? Do not read this article if you're not interested. Why not have all commercial aircraft fatal accidents? Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Because there are inclusion guidelines for a reason, please read WP:N and specifically WP:NOTNEWS. —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per number of deaths. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- And deaths make it automatically notable? —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Although this is tragic, it is nothing more that a news story, newsworthy, but not notable. —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Again. Every news article does not need an encyclopedical article.... Use Wikinews! <-- Spam :-P --> --Diego Grez (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Apparent cause makes it notable, in addition to death count. Fatal aircrashes in New Zealand have almost invariably been caused by the plane flying into something, as opposed to bursting into flame. Limegreen (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- It didn't burst into flame until after it hit the ground, so there is no apparent cause as far as I can see except possibly a classic "stall after take off" scenario. At any rate it is completely useless for you or me to surmise the cause from some erroneous news reports and a one-sentence accident bulletin. YSSYguy (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Still notable then. No other seriously fatal aircrash in New Zealand has occurred on takeoff. Look through any list, and it's invariably "Plane flies into X", whether X be Mt Erebus, power lines, a hill, or the ground. Limegreen (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- So it's now notable because it's unusually commonplace? YSSYguy (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Still notable then. No other seriously fatal aircrash in New Zealand has occurred on takeoff. Look through any list, and it's invariably "Plane flies into X", whether X be Mt Erebus, power lines, a hill, or the ground. Limegreen (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. per Lugnuts. and for the last time MMN stop misusing WP:NOTNEWS. it clearly does NOT apply here. Moreover it is WP:NOTLAW and the will of the community cannot be ignored. it is very clear from recent debates on air crashes that the community wants these articles kept.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why don't you do something with Misplaced Pages:Notability (air accidents) then? The more you try and steamroller these debates like this, saying the same thing at any Afd on any crash with any plane with any death toll in any situation and with any kind of coverage, without doing anything about that redlink, the less credibility you have for claiming to speak for the community. MickMacNee (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- well I am sick and tired of WP:NOTNEWS being used as the SOLE argument for starting these AfDs and then invariably these AfDs failing and people like you refusing to get the message per WP:STICK . I think Mjroots is a respected admin who has an interest in Aviation related articles and he is working on something. meanwhile how many failed AfDs before you see the folly of your way of thinking. or is that too much to expect from somebody who has been blocked > 20 times ????--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)