The result was Snow Keep - There is overwhelming consensus that the article should be kept. The article on the pilot can be merged into this article without need to run a separate AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by mjroots ( talk • contribs)
Almost three months have passed since this accident occurred and the article was created, the article is now quite stable in terms of additions and it fails to meet WP:EVENT, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:AIRCRASH.
Even though the formal accident investigation has not been completed there is no public information at this point to indicate that the accident was anything other than a "continued VFR into IMC and collision with obstacle" accident, a very common scenario. There is no evidence that there were any equipment malfunctions nor any indication of service bulletins, airworthiness directives, changes to VFR routes or any other matériel changes on the way. While both the Lord Mayor and the Prime Minister indicated that there should be regulation reviews, there is no indication that these have happened or that these statements were anything more than the usual "someone ought to do something" comments made by politicians after one of these accidents, that are quickly forgotten.
As far as the reporting goes, all but two refs cited in the article are from the day of the accident or the day after. Two were from six days later, but essentially the story disappeared from the media completely in under a week and hasn't resurfaced since.
As far as the physical effects went, two people were killed (pilot and a ground bystander) and there were road closures in the immediate area for the rest of the day of the accident, but it seems that roads were reopened the next day. An article, Peter Barnes (pilot), was started on the accident pilot, but it is clear that his notability does not extend beyond being killed in this accident. Depending on the decision here at AfD on this article that article can be considered separately and later.
So what I see a month after the accident is that was a common type of helicopter crash, similar to hundreds of others that happen each year, with two regrettable deaths and so far no lasting press coverage or any other long term repercussions of any type. It seems that the only reason that this got any press coverage at all is that it happened in the built-up area of a major city and therefore in close proximity to many news outlets, making press coverage convenient to undertake. At this point in time as far as I can see it still fails WP:AIRCRASH, WP:EVENT and is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which is a Wikipedia policy designed specifically to exclude these types of common daily events that have no lasting effects.
Since there has already been some heated debate on the article talk page and on WikiProject Aviation I would suggest contributors to this debate review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions before commenting to avoid the classic arguments to retain the article "just because WP:ILIKEIT" or similar. Arguments to retain the article should show that it has enduring effects and thus complies with the policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Ahunt ( talk) 14:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Snow Keep - There is overwhelming consensus that the article should be kept. The article on the pilot can be merged into this article without need to run a separate AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by mjroots ( talk • contribs)
Almost three months have passed since this accident occurred and the article was created, the article is now quite stable in terms of additions and it fails to meet WP:EVENT, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:AIRCRASH.
Even though the formal accident investigation has not been completed there is no public information at this point to indicate that the accident was anything other than a "continued VFR into IMC and collision with obstacle" accident, a very common scenario. There is no evidence that there were any equipment malfunctions nor any indication of service bulletins, airworthiness directives, changes to VFR routes or any other matériel changes on the way. While both the Lord Mayor and the Prime Minister indicated that there should be regulation reviews, there is no indication that these have happened or that these statements were anything more than the usual "someone ought to do something" comments made by politicians after one of these accidents, that are quickly forgotten.
As far as the reporting goes, all but two refs cited in the article are from the day of the accident or the day after. Two were from six days later, but essentially the story disappeared from the media completely in under a week and hasn't resurfaced since.
As far as the physical effects went, two people were killed (pilot and a ground bystander) and there were road closures in the immediate area for the rest of the day of the accident, but it seems that roads were reopened the next day. An article, Peter Barnes (pilot), was started on the accident pilot, but it is clear that his notability does not extend beyond being killed in this accident. Depending on the decision here at AfD on this article that article can be considered separately and later.
So what I see a month after the accident is that was a common type of helicopter crash, similar to hundreds of others that happen each year, with two regrettable deaths and so far no lasting press coverage or any other long term repercussions of any type. It seems that the only reason that this got any press coverage at all is that it happened in the built-up area of a major city and therefore in close proximity to many news outlets, making press coverage convenient to undertake. At this point in time as far as I can see it still fails WP:AIRCRASH, WP:EVENT and is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which is a Wikipedia policy designed specifically to exclude these types of common daily events that have no lasting effects.
Since there has already been some heated debate on the article talk page and on WikiProject Aviation I would suggest contributors to this debate review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions before commenting to avoid the classic arguments to retain the article "just because WP:ILIKEIT" or similar. Arguments to retain the article should show that it has enduring effects and thus complies with the policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Ahunt ( talk) 14:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply