Deletion of Singapore Airlines Flight 380

Comment: WP:N#TEMP states that a short burst of news reports does not afford a subject long-term notability, therefore it is before off being covered at Wikinews, not #NEWS|on wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: No, my arguments are the same, those being #NEWS and #ADVERTISING. It should be remind that from #TEMP that a short burst of news reports on a particular subject, including this Afd, does not afford a subject long-term notability, and as such is better off being covered at Wikinews, not on Wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:N)

Comment: What exactly is my bias? Point it out from my previous nominations from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Russavia&namespace=4&year=&month=-1 here. It should also be noted that Huaiwei had no input on this article previously. And it should also be noted that you accused me on ANI of sockpuppetry, an accusation which you have neither followed up on nor apologised for. Now, if you can present an argument which is based on policy instead of , then please present them
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks (WP:PA)

Comment: and admonish nominator in the interests of |fighting systemic bias
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:CSB)

Comment: It should be noted that the above editor believes I have it out for the Singapore|little-red dot, and it has NOTHING to do with any policy, and the fact that certain Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#This_is_getting_absolutely_ridiculous|airline articles are spiralling out of control, and it also has nothing to do with the above editor being somewhat responsible for this due to his Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Consensus_reached_on_several_issues|inability to abide by concensus, and various other issues. The modus operandi of the above editor is to |resort to personal attacks at any opportunity, as is evidenced by various disputes he has been in, including those which resulted in him being put on probation and banned from editing certain articles for a lengthy period of time. What the above editor fails to see is that quite a few occasions other editors from the general community have agreed with my Afd nomination, resulting in article deletion or redirection, and that I could hardly hide the other nomination as I had to Afd all 3 articles openly. But when one can't argue against the argument, they attack the person, and this is commonplace, hence why I removed my above comment and placed a struck out comment, as I have no interest in discussing and reasoning with such a person
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks (WP:PA)

Comment: So care to explain your own comments on the non-existence of other first flights then? It is your own comments we are talking about here, mind you. And I find it very interesting that you should quote #TEMP, because it actually '''supports''' the existence of this article: ''If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is '''no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic''', though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence.'' This article has met the general notability guideline easily, in that it has ''received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'' as well illustrated above. Once again, our friend
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Would you not agree that your comment has basically degenerated (once again) to nothing more than ? In fact, it fits the bill exactly: ''We do not have an article on , so we should not have an article on this.'' Notability is not established by what you define as a workhorse of the aviation industry. It is established by the extent of coverage via third-party sources, which has been clearly demonstrated as meeting the requirements as per above, irregardless of the outcome of the plane's performance in years ahead. If an article has PR-spammy-advertorial content, than initiate an attempt to clean it up (unless you are able to do it yourself). You are once again reminded not to abuse the AfD process
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: Not a violation of #NEWS (what I think the nominator meant as  is not a "law" but simply a portal to news stories).  If you read the full text of #NEWS, you'll see it it primarily about living persons and avoiding causing harm to private individuals.  The first two sentences state "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right."  This article in no manner is harming any individual.  And surely the maiden flight of the largest commercial aircraft is of historic significance
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NEWS)

Comment: Comments erased due to yet another |personal attack  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks (WP:PA)