Deletion of United Airlines Flight 1175 (2nd nomination)

Comment: as suggested per . Aviation incidents are routine, and the level of detail in the article is pure aviation fancruft; it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia directed at a general audience
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Too soon. Really, renom the day it is restored? First, the previous AfD is moot--that was then, this is now. And that AfD was littered with drive-by insubstantial or conclusion jumping comments that have not aged well. The restoration was not based on a single local news report--there was a significant NTSB investigation over two years with over 200 pages of PD text that can be used to improve the article. Notability is about coverage in RS, and NTSB is an exemplar of RS. It would be unusual if a non-trivial NTSB report was not sufficient all by itself to satisfy . NTSB does not pursue an investigation for months and years into something not notable. If something new is "mentioned" in relation to something old, then that means the old thing is still relevant. I would not characterize the new mentions as insignificant--I think that is not supported by a plain reading of the many mentions. OTNEWS does not mean that something in the news is not notable. EVENT is not really applicable two years later. EVENT is part of that, but specifically this event lead to an AD that initiated the 6500 cycle inspection interval, which was obviously insufficient since a subsequent failure occurred at less than 3000 cycles, and identified significant shortcomings that lead to major changes in the inspection  process, that still did not prevent two subsequent failures
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NEVENT||WP:NEVENT)

Comment: Don't really like doing 'per' !votes, but this has been litigated quite a bit, so there's not ''that'' much room for a groundbreaking new position. In short -- I find the keep arguments persuasive and the delete ones not. I have qualms quite generally with people's interpretations of , which frequently range from questionable to outright unempathetic (I've had the experience of seeing people involved in recent disasters be ''extremely'' distressed by the AfD notice popping up on the article as they read it). Overall, I'm confident saying that this has sustained coverage, a meaningful impact, and fits what we'd consider a notable aviation incident to be
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The nomination is based on  which states that "''routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia''".  The topic here is nothing like that – it was a serious technical failure which has been the subject of extensive investigation, legal action and reportage over several years.  There's a lot to say about it and, insofar as the result is |lengthy, that's a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our policies  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:TLDR||WP:NOTPAPER||WP:PRESERVE)