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.
notability WP:N, verifiability WP:V, reliable sources WP:RS, and what Wikipedia is not WP:NOT.
A completely non-notable accident, with no notable effects or lasting coverage. Exactly the sort of chaff that shouldn't be written in the first place!! Petebutt (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a crash of a Douglas DC-9 on a scheduled flight that results in the aircraft being written off. Lack of deaths ≠ lack of notability. WP:V is already met. Article is a mess, it would benefit from an infobox and some structure, but needing improvement is never a reason to delete and article. Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and improve: the article right now reads more like a story than an encyclopedic entry, and the article should probably have at least one more reliable source with significant coverage, but the report from the NTSB pulls a ton of weight, and combined with the two articles from the Sioux City Journal (one of which admittedly briefly touches on the event), I think there's enough to warrant its own short article. If the article is not kept, it should at least be merged per Metropolitan90 above. All that said, I have no idea where the nominator is pulling claims of WP:V and WP:RS from. TheTechnician27(Talk page)01:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only claim in the nomination that is worthy of discussion is whether or not the subject of the article meets WP:N. A crash of a commercial jetliner in regular service resulting in a total loss of the aircraft and injuries to passengers, resulting in ongoing news coverage despite occurring on a busy news day (happened the same day as the return to earth of Apollo 8 and a different fatal air crash at Chicago O'Hare) clearly meets notability standards. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
