Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Dhaluza, 02:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NEVENT||WP:NEVENT (Wikipedia:Notability)