Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1956 Atlantic R6D-1 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. postdlf (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

1956 Atlantic R6D-1 crash

1956 Atlantic R6D-1 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A military aircraft accident has to be notable, unlike this one, which can be adequately covered in List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1955–1959)#1956 Petebutt (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Utterly disagree. I find it hard to understand how it is not notable; in fact, I find it suprising that no article has existed before. It was a major event: Fifty-nine (!!) people died, making it deadlier than all but two of the other aviation accidents and incidents in 1956 – you can check this quickly by clicking through the other accidents listed in the "Aviation Accidents and Incidents in 1956" template at the bottom. It's also one of the deadlier U.S. naval aviation accidents in history. If a crash of this magnitude is not notable, it makes one wonder why so many other crashes with far fewer casualties and mundane causes are "notable" enough to merit their own articles. And whether the aircraft is a military transport or a civilian airliner does not seem important, especially in the case of a high-fatality incident in peacetime. Mdnavman (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)mdnavman
• Keep. Given the number of fatalities, the accident appears to be notable. It is unclear why peacetime military accidents involving non-combat aircraft should meet a different (i.e. higher) threshold of notability compared to civilian accidents. Also, if the content is sufficiently developed for an adequate treatment in a standalone article - and I'd say that it is - then the existence of a list does not matter. GregorB (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep' - again, an accident with in excess of 50 fatalities. This should be a sufficient threshold to be able to sustain a stand alone article. The "rule" about military aircraft accidents being generally less notable is intended to keep out the thousands of training and operational accidents involving only a few fatalities, not major accidents like this. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Quite true, military aviation naturally has a much higher accident rate, combat aircraft in particular. My point was that this flight involved transport of personnel, which makes it in essence equivalent to, say, a civilian chartered flight. So, in this particular context I don't think that the fact it was a military aircraft matters much. The number of fatalities, of course, makes it even more straightforward. GregorB (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I defend nominating the article, as I felt that it fell into a grey area and a discussion could only improve the coverage of Aviation accidents. Thank you all for your input.--Petebutt (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I guess, and I don't mean to be rude or insulting here, but my thought processes on what should and should not be in Wikipedia are quite different, and I remain surprised that this article was nominated. I think what I consider a "common-sense" test should be in order for such nominations that goes beyond whatever gray area there may be or whatever cautious or conservative interpretation of Wikipedia policies may be possible. The test, simply put, is to imagine in this case that someone tells you that 59 military personnel just died in a plane crash and to consider whether or not you would say to yourself or to them, "Sounds pretty routine to me." You probably would instead be shocked by the size of the death toll. And there you go – you know it's a significant accident, worthy of far more than being buried in some list somewhere. (One could also try to imagine the news media ignoring such an accident because 59-death military aircraft crashes are so common that they have become boring, which also is not credible.) Anyway, coverage of this accident is very poor online, so I hope that the Wikipedia article will spur greater interest and more research, and will itself, as a living document, be expanded when that research pays off. After all, that is an important mission of Wikipedia, from which we all benefit. (That being said, I think Wikipedia would improve its stature by considering fewer computer-game-character articles to be significant enough for inclusion, but that, of course, is a whole different subject!) Best wishes in the New Year! Mdnavman (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)mdnavman
• Keep although a military flight it is a non-operational, non-training trooping flight with multiple deaths. Dont like the use of crash in the title and as this appears to be a dissapearance so perhaps should be renamed if kept. MilborneOne (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, appears notable --Nouniquenames 14:49, 4 January 2013 (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.