Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Eagle III MBB Bo 105 accident

: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. WP:HISTMERGE remains an open option should any editor wish to merge content of this article into Eagle III. Any interested editor please drop me (or whoever your favourite admin is) a line, and we'll happily provide you a copy of the delete content, and perform the page history merge when the content goes onto the Eagle III article. Deryck C. 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

=[[2006 Eagle III MBB Bo 105 accident]]=

:{{la|2006 Eagle III MBB Bo 105 accident}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|2006 Eagle III MBB Bo 105 accident}})

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. The aircraft crashed on a maintenance flight. Only one person was on board, they died. Will WP:Aircrash be used in order for every crash involving deaths that got local news coverage in order to justify articles? Then we could well be on the way to private plane crashes ending up with articles. If the crash involved transporting patients, GNG might be met. For example this[http://www.jems.com/article/news/3-killed-medical-plane-crash-chicago-sub] which happened less than two months ago. A medical transport plane crashed outside of Chicago killing 3 including the patient. Personally, I wouldn't write that up, only because my wife knew two of the victims. William 01:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 01:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -William 01:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 01:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - as this was a private flight, WP:AIRCRASH's standards are different than airliners and large aircraft. In this case, the relevant part of AIRCRASH says an accident is notable if: the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), which is not the case here; and The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft), which it, as far as I can tell, did not. AIRCRASH also states that the accident would also require passing the WP:GNG/WP:EVENT/WP:NOTNEWS in order to have a stand-alone article vs. a mention in the type/operator article. None of the above are met for this accident; coverage is local, and lacks WP:PERSISTENCE to merit local coverage conferring notability. TL, DR: tragic but non-notable accident, delete it. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge without redirect, this info can be adequately housed in the Eagle III article. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Can't merge without redirect; could always write from scratch in the suggested article though. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • That's what I meant, merge the info into the article on the operator, no need to have a redirect from the current title to the operator once that has been done. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

: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.