Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 2013 Hudson Bay plane 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 merge/redirect to Morningstar Air Express#Accidents and incidents.

Consensus is clear that a stand-alone article is not warranted. There are no policy-based reasons mentioned for deletion without merging/redirecting, so merging is the correct outcome. Since that already took place, I'm closing this as redirect though which is what happens after merging anyway. So Why 07:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013 Hudson Bay plane crash

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

Tragic but not notable small plane crash. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see WP:GNG.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is a reason to delete, not a reason to keep. YSSYguy (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG is a guideline which states that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then we can presume that the subject is notable. Accordingly, GNG can be cited as both as a reason to keep an article (i.e. if an article has had significant coverage in reliable sources) or to delete an article (i.e. if an article has not had such coverage). Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment It has been logged on Aviation Safety Network, and ASN's own Wikipedia entry has less coverage than this. For now, this qualifies as an aviation stub until further coverage comes up on it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify your comment about ASN, I don't understand what point you are trying to make. As for further coverage coming up, what do you think there would be, four years later? YSSYguy (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a single-pilot cargo flight doesnt appear to be particularly noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor YSSYguy: the point I'm trying to make regarding ASN is the fact that the linked organization reporting this has less coverage than the article itself, so what does that say about ASN if this should be deleted?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but if you are comparing the respective sizes of the two articles, that is not "coverage". There was a brief flurry of news reports about the crash, then nothing. You are of course welcome to discuss the ASN article at AfD. YSSYguy (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the amount of coverage, not the size of the articles.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This accident clearly doesn't fall into the guidelines stated by WP:PLANECRASH and WP:NOTNEWS Flashjacket348 (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Morningstar Air Express. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:PLANECRASH:

The accident was fatal to humans; or

The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or

The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

I think it supports a keep. But if not, we can then go by User:Mean as custard's suggestion which I was also going to suggest.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The PLANECRASH essay says those criteria apply to incidents involving large aircraft only; it also says that the essay "should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not". YSSYguy (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An aircraft crash with one unnoteworthy death doesn't require a Wikipedia page. What YSSYguy said is right and NadirAli obviously didn't read WP:PLANECRASH correctly. Flashjacket348 (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What defines a large aircraft on Wikipedia? If not keep then, why not merge it into the a list of air crashes in 2013 or into Morningstar Express.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, "large aircraft" does not have a formal definition on WP, but a Caravan is a light aircraft. YSSYguy (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An "Accidents and incidents" section could be added to the Morningstar Air Express article citing this incident. A stand alone article is unnecessary. Samf4u (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a description of the accident to the Morningstar article. YSSYguy (talk) 08:02, 24 June 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.