Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatalities from aviation incidents

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. Not exactly WP:SNOW but I doubt that someone's going to pop in in the next three hours with a good argument for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fatalities from aviation incidents

Delete Use Categories instead Unbordel (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User is blocked for 72 hours for abusing multiple accounts. Tavix | Talk 17:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an appropriate list with a non-trivial intersection of topics, and it can easily be sourced. It also presents more info than a category can. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). This does have alot more info than a category can provide. However, can I suggest renaming it to List of notable aviation fatalities? The current title suggests there is more to the list than there actually is. ZabMilenko 09:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no as the list already applies that. For example, List of pigs could have millions of entries, but only the notable ones are listed. Tavix | Talk 21:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A rename is in order, though. By definition a fatal event in aviation is not an incident. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just for the benefit of newer editors, the supporting guideline (for my !vote, TenPoundHammer's, and ZabMilenko's) is WP:CLN — which, if the nominator had read WP:BEFORE more thoroughly, he would have found.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list does way more than a category, which is the only reason the nominator is suggesting deletion. Tavix | Talk 21:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is why I say keep, the nominator have not stated a reason why this list is being nominated, therefore I assume that this was nominated in a bad faith. If more details can be added in (such as what aircraft they travelled in like on the air display section), I assume that it will be more than a indiscriminate list. Donnie Park (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly useful and informative stats list. Why would anyone want to get it deleted anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful article, with far more detail than in a category list.218.14.48.117 (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenPoundHammer, and the last AfD. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:54, 7 June 2009 (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.