Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Akron Rayathon Hawker 800 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 no consensus. This discussion has received ample input, but no consensus for a particular action has occurred herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Akron Rayathon Hawker 800 crash[edit]

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

Non-notable aircraft accident previously a redirect because of lack of notability but recently restored. Crashes of small business jets are rarely notable unless they kill somebody important enough that they have a wikipedia article or are outstanding for other reasons. Very few of the many hundreds of business jet fatal accidents feature in Wikipedia, nothing that makes this one stand above the threshold MilborneOne (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fairly routine, commonplace accident, nothing notable here. - Ahunt (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even consistently spelled. Nothing of substance here. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Crashes like this clearly at fault of both main and co-pilot, violation of rules, and more relevant now that there was the fight over controls of a plane by a Jordanian student pilot across the street from Pratt and Whitney brings up question of possibility of terrorism, this plane happened to hit an apartment building though investigators has no reason to believe it was targeted or that the co-pilot was playing ignorance as to why he was flying so slow without flaps. There was also a plane stolen from Toronto that crashed near a mall on its way to Ottawa which was investigated, but cleared for terrorist national security concerns. Continuous press coverage since the crash, and October 2016 publishing of conclusions. Crashes of this magnitude with international press coverage are always notable, and have already been noted in two other wikipedia articles. . Bachcell (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Notable, widely covered airplane crash.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like not routine at all, an at-fault crash accroding to NTSB and USA Today Akron plane crash that killed 9 'infested with sloppiness', [1]. Not to mention the Plain Dealer digging out stuff like: Airline altered records about deadly Akron plane crash, ex-employee says, [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Still dont see anything encyclopedic about the accident, Just because it is someones fault doesnt make it notable, thousands of aircraft accidents can be blamed on somebody that doesnt make them notable and wikipedia is not a newspaper or tabloid that covers everything possible. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We try not to decide what's notable based on arguments form principle, rather, we follow the sources. If RS such as major national media cover an airplane crash in ways that meet WP:GNG: it's WP:NOTABLE; if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, it is not Not WP:NOTABLE. In other words, when the sources are there, we keep the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sourced newspapers create articles all the time it doesnt make them encyclopedic, in this case they are just responding to the accident report of N237WB which says that this was not particularly notable just pilot error. We dont include every pilot error accident that appears in newspapers because as has been explained they are not unusual or particuarly rare and I still dont see anything that raises it above the bar for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies here. News media outlets report on cats stuck in trees, that does't mean we need to have an encyclopedia article on these incidents and it is the same case here. Bizjet accidents are weekly events and unless they result in changes to ATC or aircraft procedures, Airworthiness Directives or other consequences, they are not any more notable than a car accident is. - Ahunt (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not routine. article needs some improvements but that is not a reason for deletion. E.M.Gregory has found plenty of good sources.BabbaQ (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event happened in November 2015. The two sources E.M.Gregory mentioned were published nearly a year later in October 2016. If the event were routine, it would not have had continued coverage 11 months later in a national publication like USA Today. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not really continual coverage the latest reports were triggered by an accident report as is usual and routine. MilborneOne (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it isn't continual coverage. There was coverage of the crash and then nothing new until the report came out, which is common in the general media. There is just nothing notable about this accident, it is just a news item. - Ahunt (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard referenced WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, not "continual coverage". Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That a national publication, USA Today, considered the October 2016 report of a November 2015 crash worth covering demonstrates the event is notable. Cunard (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An accident this big is not statistics, especially IMO from the view of people in Akron, Ohio. Coverage as recent as 18 October 2016 can be found by looking at Google news for [2015 Akron Hawker 800 crash]. Topic is currently prominent at Akron Fulton International Airport, and is also currently covered at Hawker 800. The nomination has not reviewed the alternatives to deletion, which as per WP:BEFORE I believe would have rendered this discussion moot...note that the related advice on "How to contribute" for AfD participants states,

Alternatives to deletion should be considered. If you think the article should be a disambiguation page, a redirect or merger to another article, then recommend "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge". Do not recommend deletion in such cases.

Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not Akronpedia so in a worldwide context is not notable or reported. As it would not meet the criteria for a stand-alone article it should (as a fatal accident) be in the airport article but they are far to many accidents similar for it to be mentioned in the aircraft article (although if an Accidents and incidents involving the Hawker 800 were created current practice would list it). MilborneOne (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But this is the English Wikipedia, not "worldwide context" pedia. Only for WP:CORPORATION do we evaluate whether sources are local or regional. As per the previous AfD, diff, "...this crash was reported nationally and internationally on many news networks (i.e.: ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc.) and social media. It wasn't just a local news matter." Unscintillating (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are several factors that make this unlike a small private two-seat airplane crash into a mountainside. A building on the ground was demolished. There was a fire that was a factor in the deaths of the occupants. This was public transport. Nine are dead, most of them executives. It was the largest crash in the history of the city and the county. There are concerns about the safety attitude, training, hiring practices, and record keeping of the charter. Unscintillating (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think that a link to other coverage should suffice for the aircraft article. I'm not aware of any current indication that the aircraft was a primary factor in the crash. Unscintillating (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this is kept, then the blatant plagiarism needs to be re-worded. Right now, it is at least in part a copyright violation. Bearian (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Not a word-for-word plagiarism. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian (talk · contribs), would you clarify which part of the article is "blatant plagiarism"? I searched several sentences from the articles on Google and did not find them copied from anywhere. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info area for a previous AfD and redirects and articles related to that AfD

Comment Here are two articles currently with coverage of the crash:

Comment Here is a better version of the current article: [3]. Unscintillating (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or cover in some appropriate list. WP:NOTNEWS applies, this is essentially a local traffic accident, and it does not become more significant just because a small aircraft was involved rather than, say, a school bus. Sandstein 08:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a crash that kills nine people is notable Blythwood (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I reviewed the links, and it is not a word for word case of plagiarism, although paragraph two, sentence one, is a close re-wording of a headline. No objection remains to a keep. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an accident only of interest to the local community; no significant long-term or societal impact. Wikipedia is not a catalog of minor accidents. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2016 (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.