Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Scotland Royal Air Force plane crash

:{{la|2009 Scotland Royal Air Force plane crash}} ([{{fullurl:2009 Scotland Royal Air Force plane crash|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Scotland Royal Air Force plane crash}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Per WP:AIRCRASH, military aviation crashes don't tend to pass WP:N. The military aircraft section makes it pretty clear that this accident is not notable, merely tragic. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I disagree that failing WP:AIRCRASH is the issue. The guideline says that military crashes don't fall under that guideline, not that they are not notable. I say delete simply for WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

:*The guideline says nothing of the sort. It differentiates them from what went before, sure, but it doesn't remove them from the guideline. That's why there's several lines of it afterwards where they are discussed in their own right. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Whether or not AIRCRASH applies is unclear: the page unhelpfully says that military crashes '...are not in the purview of this discussion', then proceeds to provide a set of guidelines exclusive to military craft anyway. One possible reading is that the 'discussion' that the military crash guidelines are not 'in the purview of' consists of the previous guidelines for general aircraft crashes. Reguardless of whether they are formally applicable, the guidelines in AIRCRASH seem to be perfectly sensible: the crash occured during the course of routine training with no unusual circumstances, did not occasion the loss of civilian life, and is almost certainly not the first crash of a twenty-three year old airframe. Therefore, not notable. -Toptomcat (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

:Delete military losses are not normally notable paticulaly when no other party (apart fom the mountain) is involved. One of thousands of similar non-notable fatal military aircraft accidents this one is just WP:NEWS (or it was last week). MilborneOne (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:Keep, this involved the loss of two lives. We have other military crashes on here that could be considered questionable, but they are here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete That's the "other stuff exists" argument, and it never works. Feel free to nominate other articles that you consider questionable. Alternatively, simply name a few and I'd wager that someone will nominate them. Although any loss of life is a tragedy, I see no indication that this is historically notable; it's news, and Wikipedia is not the news. Mandsford (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Whilst deploring MilborneOne's casual disregard for the injury these events cause to mountains, I too fear that it has to go per WP:NOTNEWS. Ben MacDui 17:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:N. Mjroots (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Ben MacDui. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete sad, yes. notable, no. military aircraft are often lost (even absent enemy fire) and each loss is not usually notable in itself - indeed, military aircraft often deliberately fly in harm's way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2009 (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.