Trevor Jacob plane crash: Although the NTSB report has not been issued as I write this, given what we know already, it's clear that the crash was caused entirely by the actions of the pilot; the airplane, the ATC system, FAA regulations, and so forth had little or nothing to do with it.  Thus, discussion of the crash boils down to the actions of the man, which belong in the Trevor Jacob article.  Most content of this article duplicates that article already, and the remainder can easily be merged with it.  Carguychris ( talk ) 19:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Transportation .  Carguychris ( talk ) 19:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having the separate page allows for more detailed discussion of the incident than a profile page, especially for someone like Trevor Jacob who is also notable for other reasons.  There will naturally be info about the incident on Jacob's page, but having a page specifically for the incident allows for more liberty to expand the page as needed.  The incident is also very well covered, including by a wide range of very-well-known national news organizations, suggesting that the event is particularly notable even outside of aviation and is worth more than just a subsection on another page.  Slowtationjet ( talk ) 19:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll note that the article about the crash itself is almost as long as Trevor Jacob's personal page.  I feel like this proves that it's worth having a dedicated space to expand more upon the crash itself and use Jacob's personal page to flesh out all of his escapades, including other things such as his snowboarding career.  Slowtationjet ( talk ) 19:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ...[this page] is almost as long as Trevor Jacob's personal page.  — User:Slowtationjet Both pages are relatively short by recent BLP standards, and this page is almost as long as Jacob's personal page mainly because it delves into minor details such as the strap-on fire extinguisher and altimeter.  Almost all of the important facts are duplicated, and adding all the minor ones to his personal page would only lengthen it by a few sentences.  Cheers.  Carguychris ( talk ) 20:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article has substantial independent news from reliable sources: see [29] , [30] , [31] , and even here .  Cheers, atque supra !  Fake scientist 8000 19:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] it also has the same number of notable independent sources Slowtationjet ( talk ) 19:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All of those sources extensively discuss Trevor Jacob the YouTuber, the strange things he did, and the controversial video he posted.  I have yet to see a single article or video about this crash that doesn't discuss these things.  It's effectively impossible to disentangle the plane crash from his actions, which is why I think this page is a textbook example of WP:CFORK and should be merged.  Carguychris ( talk ) 20:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge back any (minimal) added value and Delete per nom.  The parent page on Trevor Jacobs is sufficient to say all that is worth saying.  It has been around since 2014 and is never going to get much bigger.  Forking 90% of it just adds a pointless click-through for the reader.  — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk ) 19:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Delete - this is a clear WP:CONTENTFORK and just duplicates the information at Trevor Jacob .  At this point in time there seem to be little that is expected to develop in the story beyond his sentencing and so the two articles are unlikely to diverge.  - Ahunt ( talk ) 20:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy merge and delete Absolutely no reason this needed to be created as a separate duplicative article.  Reywas92 Talk 14:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and delete .  Entirely unnecessary duplication of content which can be placed in more context by the biography.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 17:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per precedent that aviation accidents that involve the death of Wikinotable people can sustain stand-alone articles.  Mjroots ( talk ) 14:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nobody died.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 15:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, not applicable in this case as there was no death involved.  - Ahunt ( talk ) 15:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – I'm adding additional sources to the article.  it's overly notable as its own article.  it's covered widely and has received significant international attention.  as much as Jacob's personal page mentions the crash, the fact remains that this incident is incredibly notable in its own right and deserves its own space to be discussed in the amount of depth that a dedicated page provides.  Slowtationjet ( talk ) 14:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - the issue with this article is not a lack of references, it is that it is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK .  Adding even more refs won't address that problem.  - Ahunt ( talk ) 15:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To add to that, Jacob's career as a YouTuber is central to the whole incident.  A career much better discussed in a biography, were the broader context for the crash becomes clear.  There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy that mandates having a separate article for a 'notable incident' that only occurred because someone was trying to boost their Wikipedia-notable career.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 15:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This 2013 nonfatal general aviation accident used to have a Wikipedia article with plenty of references, yet the article was AfD'd.  General consensus in the Wikipedia aviation community is that nonfatal general aviation crashes are not notable on a standalone basis unless the event somehow affects aviation as a whole, and even then, the bar is pretty high if there's another logical place to summarize what happened—such as the biography article about the Wikinotable pilot, who by all accounts is entirely at fault, for reasons that can be summarized in a few sentences.  Carguychris ( talk ) 16:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and delete per Ahunt's ! vote above.  CONTENTFORK that has no reason to exist.  The plane crash is relevant to the Trevor Jacob article and should be merged there.  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 04:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Note that "merge or delete" is not possible; we can do either but not both.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 06:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The intention of 'merge and delete' seems clear to me.  What exactly is the problem?  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 10:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since I first used then term here, to clarify, "merge and delete" means first take any useful content from this article that is not already at Trevor Jacob and add it there, then delete this article, as it is not really needed as a redirect.  - Ahunt ( talk ) 12:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yup, I can't really see what else it could mean.  Functionally the same as 'merge', except in as much as it avoids the sort of silly arguments I've seen occasionally where people claim that a 'merge' ! vote isn't support for deletion.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 16:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and delete per other merge ! votes, and in spite of WP:MERGEDELETE .  The article isn't much more comprehensive than the section on Trevor Jacob .  XtraJovial ( talk • contribs ) 22:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and delete Agree with the nom that this is better incoporated as a subtopic of the bio.  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 23:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and delete as unnecessary content multiplication and fragmentation.  gidonb ( talk ) 02:14, 4 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge