Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxstoke air 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 keep. Rather close to no consensus. (non-admin closure) J 947 22:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maxstoke air crash

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

WP:GNGNot notable, as a military aircraft which crash on a regular basis as an operational hazard, the incident is not notable unless there is a reason other than the crash itself. Such as, collision with a civilian aircraft, civilian casualties on the ground, caused the introduction of rules, regulations or law Petebutt (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If article is to be deleted, consider migrating content to Maxstoke. Classicwiki (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea!--Petebutt (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done!--Petebutt (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect this name given that now the incident is a part of the Maxstoke article (good solution, guys), this one above should be deleted as not notable as a stand alone article and as it is now, it is a redundant content fork. Kierzek (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep Article says that it was the deadliest RAF crash until then. Enough for notability? --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: G'day, given that the information is now included in the Maxstoke article, I think redirecting would be a better solution than deletion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable as it was the deadliest RAF aircrash at the time. Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inclusion with Maxstoke article not sufficient as that page is about the small hamlet and should have no more than a couple sentences about the place crash. Nominated article sufficiently notable. --NoGhost (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being the RAF's deadliest accident to date makes it notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/merge. Deadliest in 1918 didn't require much. And being deadliest is not a clear notability criteria. What would make it notable would be seeing more news coverage. Can someone dig out more sources? The current coverage does not suggest to me it is or was notable. PS. However, I will also point out that there may be precedence for treating ANY air crash with fatalities as notable (at least, that's what we do for 21st century accidents - but also because they are always covered on the Internet by numerous sources), but this would require a separate discussion and establishing consensus. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Google the pilot and there are a few hits (considering we're talking about 1918). The incident in mentioned in Arthur Keen (RAF officer) so I've linked it. see [1] "at the time was the worst aircraft disaster in RAF history." (a blog, I know, but...). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This was during WWI, when flying deaths due to enemy action were common. The article is I think also wrong in referring to RAF, which I thought was only established after WWI. If I am wrong in that, it was only the deadliest because the RAF was so new. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: The RAF was established on 1 April 1918, so article is correct to refer to the RAF. This crash was not due to e/a. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand corrected. However the alleged notability seems to be that it was the most serious incident in four months, which still does not give me confidence in its notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you'll find it was the deadliest British military aviation accident to date, not just the RAF. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Deadliest RAF aviation accident at the time seems like a notable incident, but the sourcing isn't that great. Having the infobox, which is useful, in the proposed target article also doesn't seem like the best option. Would be okay redirecting as well. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:01, 18 March 2017 (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.