Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1999 Glasgow Airport Cessna 404 crash


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

1999 Glasgow Airport Cessna 404 crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tragic but non-notable accident with few, if any, notable consequences, WP:GNG not news etc. etc. Would have been much more notable if it led to action that prevented, or warned pilots, that they were shutting down the wrong engine. see:TransAsia Airways Flight 222 Petebutt (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - The AAIB accident report indicates that the engine inspection became a UK CAA mandatory airworthiness directive and also indicated that it would become an FAA mandatory requirement (more than just a recommendation). Following this up to confirm is not difficult. I believe that regulation changes are criteria that makes aircraft accident articles notable (i.e. to be kept). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The AAIB report (ref 4) states clearly on page 78 that this accident resulted in the issuance of an engine airworthiness directive and thus has had a lasting effect. I have added this information to the article for clarity. Given that the accident actually did have lasting effects it meets WP:EVENT and should be kept. - Ahunt (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Now we have established notability we might as well close the discussion as a keeper, and I withdraw the nom but need assistance.--Petebutt (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2015 (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.