Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17

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. RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable aviation accident. Cargo plane crashes are common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While this is a pretty run-of-the-mill plane crash, a result of it being the FAA issuing regulations for cargo door warning alarms possibly meets WP:LASTING, but it's not a particularly huge change. Having said that, I don't really know if that was a significant enough avionics improvement to be that notable, and also for a lot of plane crashes the FAA will issue some sort of new regulations to prevent that from happening again, so it's a bit of a toss-up. I don't really have a leaning either way here. I feel like keeping or deleting both are valid arguments. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 14:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not particularly significant as a cargo aircraft a mention in the accidents and incidents section of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 would be better. MilborneOne (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a total hull loss and was a fatal accident too. Also, cargo door regulation changes for Evergreen and for McDonnell Douglas were significantly revised. Appears to pass WP:AIRCRASH. We also already do have American Airlines Flight 96, which was even less of an incident but just because it is a cargo aircraft, doesn't mean it is non-notable every time. Seems like this one checks out. Username006 (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Accident was a hull loss with fatalities, and the tragedy led to cargo door regulation changes.TH1980 (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hull loss with fatalities, meets WP:AIRCRASH. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 17:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reading other votes and WP:AIRCRASH, I have been sway from my initial comment that this does pass WP:LASTING due to the regulations. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 18:33, 19 December 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.