Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 NATO helicopter crash

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 snow keep. Jayron32 01:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 NATO helicopter crash

edit
2011 NATO helicopter crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS and general lack of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

umm, youre likely to be blcoked for NPA instead of content discussionsLihaas (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no, i'm not--93.137.101.250 (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how it's "of course" notable... it is poorly written yes, but also it's a topic of transient interest and its well covered in the articles that deal with this... in and of itself it's not a notable topic for inclusion. Shadowjams (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources? If you think it is covered elsewhere then why aren't you suggesting a redirect instead of deletion? --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. It is perfectly legitimate for the U.S. media to spend a disproportionate amount of attention on U.S. casualties rather than deaths of thousands of people around the world every day if that is what they care about. It is not legitimate for Wikipedia to engage in the same kind of bullshit in which one human life is worth more than another simply because of his nationality. If 30 casualties is worth an article, then we need at least 30,000 articles for the Iraq War, 50,000 for the Vietnam war, and maybe a million for WWII. JimSukwutput 11:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS seeks to preclude "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" which this clearly isn't. It also states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." As this is the biggest single loss of life incident for US forces in ten years of war, I think it's enduring notability is readily apparent even at this early stage. The absolute number of deaths is not relevant. If you want to counter systemic bias, create some articles about the greatest single loss-of-life events in other countries' wars.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does the fact that people didn't die at the same time in large numbers previously make this incident any more tragic? If not, I do not see the significance of the fact that it's a "ten year record". Tragedies are tragedies, and breaking a record for a time period does not make them any better or worse. Incidents like this should be evaluated on the number of deaths they've caused, and in this case that is pretty damn low for a war. This represents about 0.2% of the coalition deaths that have occurred in this war. And, if I'm allowed to include deaths of civilians, that makes it about 0.05%.
And, you missed my point about bias completely. If I were to create an article about every 30 deaths that occur in a war, I would have to create a million such articles for WWII. I don't think anybody would find that feasible. JimSukwutput 11:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't determine notability by number of deaths. Should we delete Qissa Khwani bazaar massacre because a hundred times more were killed in the Dersim Massacre? Notability is about significance in the context of related events, not absolute number of deaths--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, because in both cases you have a very large number of deaths and a very significant reaction. This, on the other hand, has no demonstrated notability yet. It has been covered in the U.S. media just as any other deaths of half a dozen American soldiers have been (and of course the Afghan deaths are mentioned at the end of every article). If the number of casualties is not how you measure the significance at this stage, then I'm not sure how you would do it. Do we know everything else beyond the number of casualties? We don't even know who carried out the attack at this point.
Just to build on my previous points, let me note that U.S. casualties in this war overall represent less than 15% of the coalition casualties and much less than that for overall casualties. They also have less than 25% of the troops in the coalition. If we were to create an article simply because it's a record for U.S. casualties, do we do that for records of British casualties as well? Canadian casualties? Civilian casualties? Records are not by themselves notable. You need the context, and the context we have here is an extraordinarily safe war (for American troops) with few casualties overall and even fewer casualties for American troops.JimSukwutput 12:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:EVENT, this appears to have very little chance of making such a significant impact that it would warrant an article. Agree that something needs to be done wrt Eugen's repeated creations of marginally-notable articles. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, after reviewing the sources, keep. Largest loss of life for the US military in Afghanistan in a single event? I'd say that's probably notable as an event. Sure, Wikipedia is not the news, but it's probably a crash that will be investigated thoroughly, and it does now have lasting impact as the single largest accident since the Afghan War started. Still maintain the same opinion on Eugen, though. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete one incident in a 10-year war. we dont have incidents for civilian bombings/drone attacks that kill 50 people (or the german bobming that killed 100) making this clearly POV because americans happened to have died. at any rate despite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS invalidating this arguement: WP already has loads of nonsensical/sensationalist stubs for current events with no further improvement making it WP:Recentism. This 3-line article can go on the afghan war page under casualties or something or on the list of such incidents for the year (where i just added it)
And on the topic aboved of notability: where is the article for the soviet deaths in a single day? the civilian deaths as i mentioned aobve. which were far more notable in their repercussions and resignations in geramny sparkign a debate of its new found guide to war after a 60-year lullLihaas (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:AIRCRASH, which may not be a policy on its own but cites three. Multiple reliable sources are available (passes WP:GNG) as well as coverage in a wide scope of sources with possible lasting effects (which takes care of WP:EVENT and WP:NEWS). This being the largest number of deaths in the War in Afghanistan in a single incident just reinforces the notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgive me for my hounding, but I would like to correct some persistent misinformation here. This is not the largest number of deaths in the War in Afghanistan. This is claimed to be the largest number of deaths in a single incident, and involving U.S. troops, after the initial invasion was over. U.S. forces number less than 25% of coalition forces, and there have been many much, much larger incidents that did not involve U.S. forces.
    • I would also like to note that this is breaking news and we should not be looking toward regular guidelines for whether to keep or delete this article. The correct policy is this, which I think the article fairly obviously does not meet. JimSukwutput 13:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, you yourself have Shadowjam has violated this guideline. It says:

"it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary

Naturally, we will reach a concensus while the AFD runs. However, if nomination had been delayed a bit the AFD may not have been necessary. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "recommended" clause is there for a reason. Some articles clearly do not make the cut, and this is one of them. I wouldn't have nominated the article myself, but I see no problem that another user did so. JimSukwutput 13:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:AIRCRASH is the relevant guideline here. Whether or not the article meets that guideline is dependant upon whether or not the aircraft was shot down, or crashed for reasons unrelated to combat. Just because the Taliban claimed the have shot the aircraft down doesn't necessarily mean that they did. If it was an accident, then we should keep the article; if it was a combat loss, then all three criteria mentioned under AIRCRASH would need to be met before the article could be kept. Mjroots (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is exactly why we do not usually create articles a few hours after an incident happens, unless that incident is extremely, extremely significant. There is no way to gauge its notability when all you have is an unofficial report. WP:BREAKING specifically states "It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors." JimSukwutput 13:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I see nothing wrong with the creation immediately the accident has happened. Get the info whilst it's fresh, build it as the sources report new developments. If this does turn out to be an accident, then I will be voting "keep". If a combat loss, it's harder to justify, but not something I'd totally rule out as of now. Things should become clear in a few hours or days. Mjroots (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above arguments, in particular WP:AIRCRASH. GreyHood Talk 14:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This will be my last comment on another person's vote, I swear, but I need to point out the obvious misreading here (which applies also to two of the users above). WP:AIRCRASH is an essay suggesting some necessary conditions for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article. It says nothing about existence of a stand-alone article, except this last part: "...it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports." In other words, it can exist as a stand-alone article if it meets all the usual guidelines. It doesn't. JimSukwutput 14:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to prove at the moment it was brought down by enemy action so its an accident, helicopters crash all the time. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Shot down" means it was NOT AN ACCIDENT. Edison (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Trout to the creator. This is premature article. Right now I can quote WP:RS (primo news sources, one of which is the BBC) for casualty figures of 31, 37 & 38. We are not a news site, we have no need to create articles on events like this so precipitously, especially when this then compromises article accuracy or reliability. When we actually know anything about the event, with any useful certainty, then it's time to create the article.
As it has now been created, I wouldn't seek to delete it though, mostly because it would probably just be re-created forthwith. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; at this time this only has 469 google hits, none of them from reliable sources, so WP:GNG applies over all else. However, it maybe too soon to tell whether it has any independent notability for being a single event.
    Furthermore, the event is not a notable battle or engagement, as far as we are aware at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think the article as it stands is beyond the GNG threshold, but not by a large margin. I'm sympathetic to NOTNEWS arguments but if the subject concerned has substantial notability (and it's reasonable to expect further coverage of this by third parties, including from other viewpoints) then a strict line on NOTNEWS only serves to keep wikipedia a couple of months out of date, which undermines one of its greatest strengths. I think that the article was prematurely created - there's very little detail which is agreed by all sources - but since it's here, I think the best option is to let it grow. bobrayner (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough general coverage for notability. And a dog! AND A DOG!! Oh the humanity! Lugnuts (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
not humanity obviouslyLihaas (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as the deadliest Coalition air incident in the entire war. The recent events like this usually gain a wide coverage and more reliable sources will be available soon. Brandmeister t 16:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete combat losses are not notable just NEWS and a bit of recentism, unfortunately its something military aircraft do in combat operations. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is an AfD, where we discuss the potential deletion of articles. This is not the place to suggest blocking, warning, notifying or sanctioning any user (in this case Eugen Simion 14 (talk · contribs)) with regards to an article they have created or edited. Please focus on the content of the article rather than discussing a user involved. wackywace 16:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sourced quote: "The deaths represent the greatest loss of military lives in a single incident since the war began in 2001." The end. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
umm, we dont vote count, if yu dont hae a reason then its not valid.Lihaas (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, gee, that seems pretty god damned straightforward to me. Slam dunk keep, the end, buh-bye, break out the trout... But, I guess that's not self-evident to all, so I will talk slowly... This is the subject of multiple, independent, substantial published reports in independent and trustworthy media outlets. Everybody agrees on that. The one and only question here is whether the principle of WP:NOTNEWS applies, to wit: is this massively covered event a simple news event or notable in and of itself as something of historic importance? This is, as I have quoted, sourced to be THE GREATEST LOSS OF MILITARY LIVES IN A SINGLE INCIDENT SINCE THE WAR BEGAN. That makes it historic. This is not your run of the mill, "Helicopter crashes, five troops killed" news stories, this is THE SINGLE GREATEST LOSS OF MILITARY LIVES IN A SINGLE INCIDENT SINCE THE WAR BEGAN. WP:N is no problem. WP:GNG is obviously fulfilled... Now break out the god damned trout... Carrite (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere sensible and transwiki content to the proper place at Wikinews. --Errant (chat!) 17:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "greatest loss of lives" statement is more than sufficiently well-documented to demonstrate the underlying notability of the event. WP:NOTNEWS does not imply that being the subject of current news coverage counts against notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -Not just a standard Afghanistan casualty. a very notable crash in the war on terror, especially since over 20 of the team were involved in the killing of Osama Bin Liner....♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now If content in this article does not grow in a few days a merge to List of aviation accidents and incidents in the War in Afghanistan should do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. While I can certainly fling around policy quotations like everyone else, this is simply a matter of common sense. If a policy somewhere prohibits an article on largest single loss of lives in this entire, decade-long war, we need to ignore or reconsider that policy in this situation. Swarm u | t 20:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep WP:NOTNEWS does not require deleting the top story in a news cycle. Sometimes "news" is historic. Bring the largest loss of NATO forces in a single action in this long-running war, the largest loss of Seals or US special operations fighters in one action, or the greatest total loss of life of coalition forces would give the eveng enduring importance. If this were merely a charter flight which crashed and killed the same number of people somewhere in peacetime, it would be kept. Edison (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this notable for me from the usual military mishap is the fact that most of the team involved in Bin Laden's assassination were killed in it, probably as an intended revenge attack, so it thus becomes a major event in the war on terror and with the Taliban/al-Qaeda.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"none of those killed participated in the operation itself". JimSukwutput 22:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can we tell about lasting significance at this time?..Only time can tell that..and no time has passed yet it happened today for crying out loud. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep-While, the grammar and literacy is at major risk for professional editing, and still at its prime, this, of course, is simply a matter of stating the factual examination, reports, and statistics. Not on the factual opinions of a decision to believe a user's research and information usage is biased and uneffective, of course, instead to edit and assist an error if, plausible. A policy prohibiting an article or category on genocide, war-crimes, or thousand-year conflicts, can be ignored or reedit the policy in this situation, more or less, in a governmental or Military record.--Corusant (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close per WP:SNOW. This is a major event in the context of the war and the specific communities involved; the details of the operation and the wisdom of packing two dozen SEALs into a fifty year old air frame for a QRF and sending them off to a hot LZ will be debated far into the future. I'm working on cleaning it up some. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group, where the bulk of the info in the article is already mentioned anyway. Outside the families of those killed, I would suggest that this event is of most significance to that organisation. I can't see that there is any need to have what is essentially one paragraph of information at two separate places, which is what this whole discussion boils down to. The information is already recorded in another article, and redirects are for people looking for such info under another name. Seems pretty simple to me. YSSYguy (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the above or to the death of bin Laden (Neptune Spear) article or the article on Chinook helicopters (under incidents) or 2011 aircraft non-accident incidents. But yes, it is sufficient to include because the United States- having started the campaign after September 11- has always contributed the most troops to this war and it is the deadliest single loss of lives for them since the war's beginning in 2001. Just because Wikipedia presently may or may not cover other wars and the casualties from them properly, perhaps having predominance in listing toward America, Europe, or the West, or on offenses or campaigns by America or the West, does not disprove or decrease the severity of this incident and is not justification enough to remove it. It is not uncommon, and it is perfectly reasonable, for encyclopedias- including those online- to have articles on significant aviation disasters- which this is- or purposeful incidents (terrorism) from a wide variety of countries, even if it does involve a lot of other incidents, space, crowding, or verification of sources.
  • Keep As someone who is involved in this situation, I can say with 100% certainty that most of the details of this article are untrue. However, the incident is the single deadliest aircraft crash in both the war in Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan. This is also one of the deadliest days for Army Special Operations Forces in their history. This is a significant enough event to warrant it's own page without being lost in another article (merge). Information will be posted and updated as it is available. --CavHoah (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC) — CavHoah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - I frequently see the "WP:NOTNEWS" thrown up for AfD on an article simply because the topic was in the news. WP:NOTNEWS does not and has never banned articles on topics that were in the news. It's to prevent "routine" events like, as WP:NOTNEWS literally states, "announcements, sports, or celebrities." The deadliest event for American armed forces in a 10 year war is not like "announcements, sports, or celebrities." To believe that this topic will not have enduring notability with public international mourning, investigations, debates and anniversary events extenting for many years (decades?) relating to this topic is willful ignorance. --Oakshade (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what do all you keep !voters suppose will happen if, say, a Hercules crashes next week and kills 31 Americans? YSSYguy (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can you imagine how cluttered Wikipedia's coverage of, say, the Vietnam War would be if it was around then and we made an article for every significant event there? --BDD (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not news. Marcus Qwertyus 03:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - KEEP, KEEP, KEEP.
  • Keep - Are you trying to hide the fact, that, Americans died? This is the largest single lose of life in Afghan war, and it is indeed important. By the way, I edited the last comments, since they were CAPSLOCKED and not wiki formated.Frajjsen (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am only a casual reader. I have limited military experience. However, it does appear obvious that it is a huge single loss.

The biggest one I have heard of. All highly trained and experienced. A huge loss of intelligence . All the local military units will suffer. As well as congressional member budget cuts.

  • Comment: This seems to be approaching the winter wonderland threshhold. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - from the article: 'The deaths are the greatest loss of US military lives in a single incident since the war in Afghanistan began in 2001'. Obvious evidence of notability right there. Robofish (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - just like any serious documented incidents (such as the Tarnak Farm incident. Easily meets WP:GNG. CharlieEchoTango 18:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this event warrants an article, however its title really needs to be changed. 174.93.217.251 (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High enough loss of life in a single incident for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would rather this article had not been created immediately, but now that it's here we should probably keep it. The fact that it's the worst single incident in terms of military deaths for the U.S. in Afghanistan is obviously of some significance, but beyond this the event is being covered in multiple contexts. There has been speculation that this might affect the overall debate over involvement in Afghanistan [1], it has been discussed in the context of the Navy SEALs overall particularly because of their recent involvement in the death of bin Laden [2], and there has been discussion of the importance of choppers in Afghanistan but also the risks that they face and changes that might be needed.[3][4]. Unsurprisingly there are a lot of local stories dealing with those who were killed, their families, etc. Basically this is a significant event in a significant conflict which seems to be kicking off ancillary discussions and stories, so keeping it makes the most sense. Finally if !keep votes continue to come in at the rate they are now a close per WP:SNOW would probably be appropriate and a time saver. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:39, 7 August 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2011_NATO_helicopter_crash&oldid=1146466204"