Taxus Baccata

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 merge to 1960 New York mid-air collision. If the merge is attempted and there is a clear consensus at the target to reject mentioning his name, then this page may be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G6 as an implementation of the RfD consensus that we shouldn't redirect to a page which doesn't mention the subject. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Baltz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This is mostly a procedural listing following Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 17#Stephen Baltz. Baltz was the sole survivor of the 1960 New York mid-air collision, but died from his injuries the following day. He is mentioned in the article, but not by name, per an apparently firm consensus against listing such survivors of air disasters. Given this unclear connection, the redirect came up at RfD. I don't necessarily favor deletion; I just oppose reverting this to an undiscussed redirect. BDD (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging the RfD participants 108.41.60.144, Thryduulf, WilliamJE, Oiyarbepsy, Joseph2302, PEIsquirrel, Tavix. Jay ^(Talk) 09:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Either Keep or merge with a mention of Baltz to 1960 New York mid-air collision, per Ivanvector in the RfD (coverage in a major publication 40+ years after the incident ([1]) and the existence of a memorial plaque ([2]) demonstrate notability). The sources make clear that there is still interest in him, so this information needs to exist somewhere. I'm fine with keeping a separate article if that's what it takes to satisfy having him named in the collision article, otherwise I lean more towards a merge (keeping WP:1E in mind). -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect without a merge. This is a classic case of a person known only for a single event, who has no other claim to notability. It is impossible to write an article on this person without the additional context of the plane crash. That said, the content in this article is excessively detailed for an article on the plane crash. Now, while the article doesn't currently give his name, I think that is acceptable in this case, as long as the redirect points to the section that describes him as the lone "survivor" (which I put in quotes because dying the next day instead of at the scene does not make someone a survivor). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose this is better than a non-section redirect, since readers will probably be able to put two and two together. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If readers have to "put two and two together" to get information, then we're not doing our job as an encyclopedia. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect - in the RfD a point was raised about a manual of style forbidding mentioning non-notable victims of aviation accidents. Baltz is notable in that context, as evidenced by ongoing coverage half a century later (per Tavix, and per my comments in the RfD), and he should be mentioned there. I don't see any reason for there to be a separate article, as Baltz's notability cannot be separated from the accident. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:08, 16 August 2021 (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.