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 deleted by MBisanz. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Kenosha helicopter crash[edit]

2008 Kenosha helicopter crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Whilst the crash is tragic, the accident is of a highly common nature, although I appreciate the aircraft did strike a house. Had the five occupants been killed, it would be an entirely different matter. The accident fails WP:AIRCRASH and Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Simply not that notable. §FreeRangeFrog 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Perhaps consider adding an entry in List of people who died in aviation-related incidents. Alpha 4615 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: plenty of reliable source coverage on the internet, not clear yet whether the notability of the event goes beyond purely routine news coverage. Arguably does meet the requirement of WP:AIRCRASH for unusual circumstances to be involved -- I'd say a helicopter crash through the roof of an occupied house that miraculously doesn't kill anybody on the ground is more unusual than if it did kill people in the building. The List of people who died in aviation-related incidents is only supposed to include people who are independently notable, so no need to cover the subject there. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I know WP:AIRCRASH is just a proposed guideline, but it does list among the items always notable: "Aviation accidents resulting an loss of life." And that seems reasonable to me. I suppose we could exempt private aviation involving only the person in a solo plane, but beyond that there is, as that guideline says, almost always sufficient coverage--as in fact there is here. DGG (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Aviation accidents resulting an loss of life." is for commercial airliners. There is no sign the helicopter was anything other than a private or corporate aircraft. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Articles on aviation disasters are created by editors more or less associated with WikiProject Aviation, and are quite seriously written and categorized, please see articles in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States to get an idea of how significant aviation disasters are covered in the Wikipedia, and/or visit WP:AVIATION. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason for keeping? I'm with the aviation accident task force myself. In particular WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS if you're suggesting that since other aticles exist than so should this. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-My impression of WP:AIRCRASH as a non-member of Project Aviation and as a categorizor of many aircrash articles for airline categories viz Category:EgyptAir is that the notability of aircrashes has something to do with the "aviation-nature" of the incident; if an incident is noticeable and puzzling to the aviation community then it gains strong notability. That was my impression upon reading the nominated article yesterday, and I didn't figure from reading the nom that you were involved in WP:AVIATION. Cheers. --Mr Accountable (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:AIRCRASH. Not only were unusual circumstances involved in the event, also "The National Transportation Safety Board responded to a string of helicopter crashes including the Kenosha event with a set of hearings, beginning February 3, 2009, intended to build support for wide-ranging increases in helicopter safety regulations." Events that change regulation are also notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to bite and agree based on the recent expansion that added that little snippet, but the source doesn't actually say a word about the crash in relation to the hearings, instead simply using an image of the crash as an ilustration. I'll go scout out the NTSB's website; if the accident was specifically mentioned at the hearings then that to me equates notability and brings it neatly past WP:AIRCRASH. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This didn't bring up anything that suggested so, although it did bring up the factual report (a stage between the immediate preliminary report and the final report with reviewed information and a cause) here which offers important information if we are to keep the article. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. The article fails NOTNEWS because the event does not get covered for an extended period of time, like say US Airways Flight 1549, but is simply reported on like any other news story and then is forgotten by media. It fails AIRCRASH because although there is loss of life, it is not from a commercial airliner. Tavix (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The reasons to keep this aren't too strong but it does meet the criteria under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AIRCRASH#Notability The crash was a helicopter owned by Midwestern Air Services, a charter company. The criteria to keep is "It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier. An occurence that results in serious injury or loss of life is an accident by definition." If we want to modify the criteria, then that's a discussion that should occur on that WP page, not this AFD. So my gut feeling is to delete but my careful consideration of the criteria says it's a keep. Therefore, it's a keep. Chergles (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the NTSB report you will see that although owned by a charter company it was in fact a private flight. Therefore, it is not commercial but general. I agree the wording is fuzzy and needs changed, but am reluctant to do it until this AfD closes so as not to be seen editing the guideline while it is being referred to in an AfD I am active in. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable, one of many non-notable fatal light helicopter accidents which we dont document. Sadly these small helicopter fatal accidents are not that uncommon. MilborneOne (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When I looked at the article, and saw it was a Robinson R44, this has re-affirmed my belief this is not a notable accident, particularly as that model has a looooooong history of problems in operation. The fact it crashed into a house does not make it notable. Also, the operator is not a part of civil aviation, but of general aviation, and there are hundreds of general aviation accidents around the world on a yearly basis. It perhaps deserves a mention on Robinson R44, but as a stand-alone article, it is not that notable, not by WP:AIRCRASH which is only an essay, but by WP:N, in that it does not have long-term notability except for a short burst of news, making it WP:NOT#NEWS. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've linked to the NTSB Factual Report from the article. General aviation, single pilot, drinking shortly before the flight. "The accident pilots medical certificate and student pilot certificate had a solo endorsement with 'revoked' written across it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs)
• Delete - Per nom. - BillCJ (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Just because a helicopter crashes doesn't demand an encyclopedia article. There needs to be something about the incident that causes it to rise above the tragic but "ordinary" nature of crashes. That's why we have criteria for encyclopedic notability. Yes, it has references, but they are news sources, and they do not demonstrate lasting notability. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per first part of nom. I disagree that it's a memorial page and that it fails WP:AIRCRAFT, but I do agree that although the loss of any lives is tragic, this particular incident simply is not notable in any way. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 04:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As a general flight with only two fatalities, fails WP:AIRCRAFT. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable general aviation incident; fails under WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:AIRCRAFT and WP:AIRCRASH. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:15, 16 February 2009 (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.