Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Magdalen Islands Mitsubishi MU-2 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. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 07:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Magdalen Islands Mitsubishi MU-2 crash

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

Article was redirected to Mitsubishi MU-2#Incidents and accidents after a discussion at Talk:Jean Lapierre. One User disagrees with the decision to redirect and has restored the article. The notability of the crash essentially rests with the notability of Jean Lapierre - if the crash involved seven non-notable people there would be no article. The reportage focuses on the person rather than the event of the crash. The crash is already mentioned in the articles about Jean Lapierre and the MU-2. I am !voting redirecting rather than outright deletion; if the decision is to delete or to keep, there are a number of redirects to Mitsubishi MU-2#Incidents and accidents that would also need to be deleted or retargeted. YSSYguy (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant accident involving a notable person, that has the potential to involve some enforcement action when the investigation is complete as well. - Ahunt (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I believe the article subject has notability. Of course the notable person involved in the crash is noted.Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 20:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC) (Banned sockpuppet of User:Carriearchdale....) HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quality of sources would indicate that it passes the WP:GNG. Given who was invovled, this crash seems more significant than any of the others listed in teh Mitsubish MU-2 page, so could be a standalone article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that there are many reasons on why this article should be kept. The old article was deleted as it had little information, especially on the investigation. Since the investigation information has been released, and is still being released as it is ongoing, I believed that it would be way too much to fit in another article, so I reverted the deletion of the article and added the newly released information. I also added other information. The article covers a very notable event. The event had significant news coverage, and dominated the news in Canada for two whole days. Not only is the incident one of the largest in Canadian history (in recent times, as Canada has had a good aviation record for a while), it also has a very notable person onboard. Jean Lapierre was a Federal Minister and Member of Parliament in Canada, and Prime Minister Paul Martin's Quebec lieutenant. He was also a prominent radio show host. This victims notability is also evident by the fact that his funeral was attended by the current (and a former, I believe) Prime Minister and his wife. His notability is not the only reason why the article should stay. Seven fatalities is actually quite a bit for aviation incidents nowadays, and it even makes it one of the highest in number of fatalities this year. Canada's aviation record is very good, I believe, and other countries with a good aviation record has articles on aviation incidents even smaller than this one. Example: West Air Sweden Flight 294. If the crash involved seven non-notable people, there would likely still be an article. This is why I strongly believe that this incident deserves its own article. Beejsterb (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The crash did not receive large amounts of coverage, the death of Jean Lapierre was what received the coverage. The coverage was about him, his life, his political contributions and so on. If it was a car crash or if he had died in a bungee-jumping accident, there would be no WP article about it and nobody would think anything of that - the cause of his death would be mentioned in the article about him and he would be mentioned in List of notable people who died in traffic collisions or the bungee jumping article and that would be that; but if an aircraft is involved we seemingly need a separate article. As for the comment "The old article was deleted [sic] as it had little information", that is speculation. YSSYguy (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - established consensus is that aircrashes that kill wikinotable people are notable enough to sustain articles, even if said aircrash might not otherwise be notable enough to sustain an article. The MU-2 is not a light aircraft, having a MTOW in excess of 5,000kg. Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The MU-2 is a light aircraft - anything with a maximum takeoff weight below 12500lbs/5700kg is a light aircraft and that is why the MU-2 in question was not fitted with flight recorders. Such consensus as you claim does not exist. In the past that was a criterion in WP:AIRCRASH, but - speaking as someone who used to invoke it all the time in deletion discussions - AIRCRASH has been thoroughly discredited in AfD after AfD over the years. YSSYguy (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2016 (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.