- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AH.9 Lynx 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)
PRODded more than four years ago and contested with the old "deaths = notable" argument. However WP:EVENT could have been written for this article and it doesn't pass muster against WP:AIRCRASH either. YSSYguy (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —YSSYguy (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —YSSYguy (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – not significant. Why do people include every damn crash?! Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - significant. Why do people try to delete every damn crash?! Lugnuts (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). This article fails WP:AIRCRASH as the aircraft is under 5,700kg MTOW. Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's already mentioned there, so there isn't really anything to merge; does it really need a redirect? The proposed target has no other such redirects to it. YSSYguy (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we don't need a redirect, the article can be deleted. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- it is listed elsewhere. Not significant.--Charles (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- appears to involve 1 Regiment AAC. I'm adding the data as a footnote in the AAC article. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) while preserving the fancy index of aircraft crashes that someone's gone to a lot of touble to set up. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Nothing significant enough for an individual article; early coverable on the main Lynx one. Kyteto (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not appear to be particularly notable for a stand-alone article, also note title is wrong (no such thing as a AH.9 Lynx so it is not really suitable for a re-direct if deleted and needs to be changed if kept. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Incident does not appear notable enough to stand on its own, and (as already mentioned) it's already included in the List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). Unless there is some other factor establishing notability here, I don't see a reason for this article. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:05, 16 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.