Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continental Airlines Flight 1883 (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 11:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Airlines Flight 1883

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

Not notable aviation incident for a standalone article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the incident caused procedural changes and is thus notable per WP:AIRCRASH. This argument was mounted at the last AfD and seems reasonable. --Laser brain (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you follow the "Keep" comments at the end of the last AFD discussion, you'll see my arguments for inclusion, which haven't changed. The key point is that this incident was fully investigated by the NTSB and resulted, among others, in changes in air traffic control procedure, which affect all flights since. It is very rare for an "Incident" (as opposed to "Accident") to be fully investigated by the NTSB and create policy or regulatory changes that have long-lasting effect, and this is considered a criterion for notability (and inclusion) on WP. Crum375 (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crum375 « D. Trebbien (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given by Crum375 above. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Laser Brain stated, passes WP:AIRCRASH since it was able to change procedures with ground and air safety. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 22:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- As pointed out by Crum375 above, this incident instigated ATC changes that are long lasting, also indicating passing WP:AIRCRASH which is an essay even the nom William values in previous AfDs. [1]. WP:AIRCRASH is conspicuously missing from the same nom's rationale this time.--Oakshade (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In agreement with Crum375 above, notable aviation incident for a standalone article per WP:AIRCRASH, although this is an essay and not a guideline. Maybe it should become a guideline page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 25 May 2016 (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.