Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Fox Glacier FU-24 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. ✗ plicit  12:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

2010 Fox Glacier FU-24 crash

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Tragic but fails WP:AIRCRASH. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep It may fail to meet the essay of WP:AIRCRASH, but WP:GNG is easily met, as per the previous AfD discussion.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It does not fail WP:AIRCRASH, which states that an aviation accident is notable if "The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft)." The article states that "The final report was released in May 2012. It recommended tightened regulation of centre-of-gravity calculations, change of use modifications and parachute pilot monitoring." -  ZLEA  T \ C 18:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - this article passes WP:EVENT as it did result in permanent changes in procedures. - Ahunt (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG.   This is not just an article about a plane crash, it is an article about a botched investigation by the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission that initially came up with a fairly flimsy and unbelievable cause of the crash, having botched the investigation, allowing key parts of the plane wreckage to be buried a mere three days after the accident.   After public protests and pressure, the commission admitted that it had mishandled the investigation, and that the conclusions in the original accident report were unlikely to have caused the accident.   The scandal resulted in more than a million dollars of new funding and additional investigators added to the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission.   Sadly, this information was removed from the article shortly before it was nominated for deletion.   RecycledPixels (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to fairly easily meet WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was a very big deal when it happened, considering it claimed nine lives which is fairly significant for airtime disasters that happened in New Zealand. Passes WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - the botched investigation pushes this one high up the notability scale. Mjroots (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and WP:SNOWBALL as it meets WP:GNG.— NZFC  (talk) (cont)  00:42, 17 August 2021 (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.