Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hestnutan Accident

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 to Deutsche Luft Hansa#Accidents and incidents. There is consensus that this incident is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but meets the less-strict criteria for inclusion in the airline article as outlined in WP:AIRCRASH. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hestnutan Accident

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG, there is no in-depth coverage of what is a non-notable wartime aircraft crash, one of thousands of non-combat air crashes during that conflict. While the son of a wikinotable person was on board, being the offspring of someone wikinotable does not of itself confer notability. YSSYguy (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. YSSYguy (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. YSSYguy (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't make the inclusion criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Fails WP:AIRCRASH ...William 10:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and ignore votes citing WP:AIRCRASH. That is an essay, not a notability guideline. Although this happened during the war it was not a result of fighting, but a regular accident with 15 fatalities. __meco (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATA is 'just an essay', so's WP:BRD. Quoting relevant essays that define reasonable standards that have been accepted by WP:CONSENSUS, instead of having to spell out the same argument in the discussion each time, should be encouraged. Also, whether fighting or not was involved is irrelevant; this is still a military aircraft accident. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - fails WP:GNG as well as WP:AIRCRASH, which is an accepted description of the the standards that have been adopted through many discussions at AfD. Military aircraft, by their very nature, are involved in more accidents than civilian ones; whether combat was involved is irrelevant. If a Wikinotable person had been involved, this would likely pass WP:GNG, but there was only the son of a Wikinotable person, and notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of many thousand wartime accidents, none of them really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Upmerge to appropriate unit article; we have lots of Luftwaffe unit articles, and this would add context. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what sources there are (WP:SPS or database-type entries, e.g. aviation-safety.net's wikibase) indicate that it was on the German civil register. YSSYguy (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be significant coverage in multiple WP:RS of this accident. Suggest Merge is an appropriate solution - to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1940–1944).Nigel Ish (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, it wasn't a Luftwaffe aircraft, so any article involving the military isn't an appropriate merge target. YSSYguy (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have we established whether this was a civil or military aircraft? The article doesn't say and I doesn't see any evidence here one way of the other. - Ahunt (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of online database entries stating it was D-ADQV "Hermann Stache" of Deutsche Luft Hansa. YSSYguy (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, thanks for that information. Since the WP:AIRCRASH requirements for civil airliners are different than military aircraft and the Ju-52 weighs in at about 20,000 lb, this accident seems to thus meet WP:AIRCRASH. I think we need to revisit the above conclusions. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to whatever the relevant Lufthansa or history of Lufthansa article is. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ahunt and add the sources that are discussed/mentioned above. Geschichte (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the sources that I have found are either self-published, non-reliable, database entries that only record that the crash took place, or a combination of these categories. I happily acknowledge that the crash meets AIRCRASH criteria, however it falls way short of the GNG, as there is no significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. YSSYguy (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the extent of the existing single Nøkleby book reference currently cited in the article? Is it just a passing one sentence mention or a more in-depth description over the two pages cited? - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Deutsche Luft Hansa#Accidents and incidents - kudos for turning up that this was a Deutsches Luft Hansa aircraft and not a Luftwaffe one; however it doesn't pass muster for a stand-alone article. That said, though, inclusion in the above link seems more than logical - in fact, the accident is already covered there! - so I'm changing my !vote. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Deutsche Luft Hansa#Accidents and incidents. I agree, given the best information we have, this is the best course of action to follow. - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2012 (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.