Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twilight Zone tragedy

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight Zone tragedy

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

~~Not notable on its own. Twilight Zone: The Movie already covers this. Beerest355 Talk 18:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets both WP:GNG and WP:AIRCRASH, and is a valid WP:SPINOUT from the movie article, where the current coverage of the accident, compared to that of the movie itself, may be WP:UNDUE. Does require a retitle though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with The Bushranger. This was a really big deal back in the 1980s, and it changed the way that films were made. The article could probably be easily expanded beyond the limits of WP:UNDUE in the parent article. I don't much like the title, either. It sounds like it's referring to the TV series. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; passes WP:EVENT quite easily. Move to Twilight Zone: The Movie incident or something, though - I totally agree the current title isn't that great. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Twilight Zone helicopter crash would be concise and to the point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to that titling, personally. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned in the title that this was the movie. So Twilight Zone: The Movie helicopter crash. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:EVENT. Three people were killed on a movie set and members of the film crew were criminally prosecuted for it. As an aviation incident, it passes because a notable person was killed- Vic Morrow. I agree with Taylor, the article should be renamed....William 21:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An aviation incident that results in the death of a notable person and is the impetus for the establishment of new regulations is pretty much the definition of a notable plane/helicopter crash. There are lots and lots of references available, even beyond what's already in the article. This is, if anything, a target for expansion, not deletion. That said, the current title is wretched, but I'm not really familiar enough with the project's common practice for naming article on aircraft incidents to suggest a move target; regardless, that's an editorial process, not a matter for AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG if nothing else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is keep, so I withdraw the nomination. Beerest355 Talk 00:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And the reason for this nomination was...? WP:TROUT should be served. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:22, 19 October 2013 (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.