Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Belgian F-16 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Belgian F-16 crash

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:GNG WP:NOTNEWS Military aircraft crashes are non-notabler unless notable due to other factors such as notable casualty or casualties on the ground Petebutt (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not particularly noteworthy, military aircraft regulary crash and only if they hit something important or kill somebody important would make them worth considering, which doesnt appear to be the case here. About 650 F-16s have crashed since the type was introduced 99% of them are not noteworthy for a stand-alone article. No reason why it cant be added to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present). MilborneOne (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable per WP:AIRCRASH. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try and avoid invoking WP:AIRCRASH as it is only an essay and not a proper guideline, though it is more or less exactly what is required to assess if articles are noteworthy.--Petebutt (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree. In Belgium and France especially in the region where it got hit is it a really important event. Local news claimed that there was a casualty, okay yes it was denied that the victim was killed during the event. As I can tell it was a major hit in the region and 15 residents were even evacuated. If this article should be in added in the List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present) then every incident should be included. It is notable the police even established a "crisiscel" and a no-go zone and a no-fly zone were established due to the explosions and the fire. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Sad, sympathetic look) It definitely should be added to the List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present). To warrant a stand-alone article, it needs to clear WP:AIRCRASH, which says:

Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-prominent. They account for many more accidents and incidents than larger civil aircraft. Military aircraft accidents may be suitable for inclusion in the relevant List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft. For accidents involving light aircraft (maximum gross weight of 12,500 lb (5,670 kg) or less) or any military aircraft the standard for inclusion is:

the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or
the accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).

I concur with Petebutt that WP:AIRCRASH is only an advice essay, and not a formal policy or guideline, and that there may be other reasons why a crash is notable, but I'm not seeing any here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Run-of-the-mill crash of a jet fighter like countless others, without even a fatality (thankfully). This is unlike for example the 1989 Belgium MiG-23 crash, in which there was a fatality and the circumstances of the accident were quite extraordinary, which makes it notable. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable military aviation incident. WP:NOTNEWS also applies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above.4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2019 (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.