Talk:Missed approach

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 May 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

VfD (2005)

On May 21, this article was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Missed approach. The result was keep. —Xezbeth 06:55, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Status

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I re-incarnated this article, as it was incorrectly redirected to go-around. I see a message here that it was trans-wikied to wikitionary, but I couldn't find it there. In any case, I don't think the important subject of 'missed approach' can be squeezed into a dictionary entry; it clearly merits its own article. If someone knows more about this, please comment. I copied the Talk-archive redirect to here. Crum375 19:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Add topic