Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Wisconsin Flight 965

The result was Keep. Mjroots (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

:{{la|Air Wisconsin Flight 965}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Air_Wisconsin_Flight_965 Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Air Wisconsin Flight 965}})

per WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS Avono♂ (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

:*Question - Why was this article nominated for AfD only 13 minutes after it was created? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_Wisconsin_Flight_965&diff=632578514&oldid=632577066] --Oakshade (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. although it is badly written the actual event is notable, and you can hardly claim notnews as it occurred in 1980. i suspect, that with a liffle digging changes in procedures may have resulted. All in all, though marginal, it ticks most boxes.--Petebutt (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. A commercial air crash with 13 fatalities seems likely to be notable, and Google reveals reliable source coverage both then [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zOcgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OG4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=2997%2C2202305][http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rd8zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SzIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=5121%2C5074220] and much later. [http://fremonttribune.com/survivors-remember-plane-wreck/article_4d06b336-9e1f-519e-9e00-c38b7ca2d9f7.html][http://www.1011now.com/home/headlines/96847209.html] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep A significant number of deaths and media coverage in reliable sources makes this notable and it gets its own article per WP:AIRCRASH. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep based on the coverage in reliable and verifiable sources regarding a plane loss with multiple deaths. Though the article would benefit from additional sources and editing , this meets any standard of notability. (05:40, 6 November 2014‎ Alansohn)
• Keep because the Information on the root cause makes it relevant. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:AIRCRASH. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (express) @ 19:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep : completely re-written!!! Can someone remove the AfD please!--Petebutt (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• {{Ping|Avono}} - I'm minded to close as keep. Any objection? Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

:: no objections raised Avono (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

: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.