Deletion of Qantas Flight 32

Comment: Trivial, .  This is not what an encyclopedia is for, to immortalize forever an incident where a piece fell off a plane.  No crash, no fatailities.  The aircraft was grounded for inspection afterwards?  Stop the presses! {{facepalm
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Classic .  It's worthy of a ''sentence'' in the A380 or Qantas article.  An airplane made an emergency landing this morning.  "Injuries-0, Fatalities-0" pretty well sums it up. Thank God that it didn't become a notable incident.  Trust me, by 11 November, this will not be news anymore
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: as per .  A brief mention in the article on the aircraft is all that is needed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Clearly meets the |notability guidelines with the |sources provided
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: Many people have argued that this is independently notable.  Since it is so recent, this is  and inappropriate.  If it becomes notable, then we can have an article on it, not before.  Being in the news ''is not notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Has received plenty of coverage, and passes the |NOTNEWS test because it has also prompted the investigation of a larger issue involving A380s and their engines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Clearly a notable accident in terms of it being the first for the A380 series - no matter what way one looks at it, it passes  even now, and will easily do so once the investigation is complete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: as per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per . Article creation appears to be a premature case of recentism. No prejudice to recreation if anything notable actually comes out of this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: clearly meets , airline grounds the fleet, possible design flaw in the engine itself suspected.  How often do modern airliners lose a part of the engine in flight
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: First off, this has a ''lot'' of sourcing behind it, and for me goes well beyond the routine coverage mentioned in . The relevant guideline, then, is , which basically requires significant widespread coverage and lasting impact. The sources already in the article come from multiple countries and offer a good level of depth which should be sufficient for that portion, so impact is the only possible stumbling block. What we have is the grounding of two fleets of A380s (one still ongoing), discovery of faults in the type's engine design and modifications as a result, and serious shifts in stock market position of at least two involved companies. Whether that is enough to meet the guideline is open to interpretation, but I reckon it is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EVENT)

Comment: Highly notable event which goes far beyond the routine news to which  refers.   is irrelevant being an essay with no standing here.  That leaves us with our |editing policy which trumps these lesser considerations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:AIRCRASH||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: into the Airbus A380 article - failing both  and  are reasons enough that this article should not be standalone - it's not a disaster, nobody died, note it in the right place and shut this thing down
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:AIRCRASH)

Comment: fail both  and . The guideline even says "if the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:AIRCRASH)

Comment: There is no absolute demand that there need to be fatalities for an event to be notable. The incident meets the criteria at . There are "lasting effects", in that it led to the grounding of the entire Qantas A380 fleet, and its investigation matters to A380 operators over the whole world. The coverage is significant, sustained, and international in scope, nor can the coverage be described as "routine" or "sensationalist". This is the first major event with the A380 and deserves coverage as such
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: per  as a case of "recentism." No crash, no one killed. Just having some news coverage does not a component failure on a plane something that encyclopedias should have an article about forever
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: enough ,  and  else... Instead of arguing guidelines, and i've found theres way too many guidelines, they waste too much peoples time, theyre badly written and many contradict one other and even themselves anyway. Simply apply Common Sense instead. Its not logical to place this in another article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:AIRCRASH||WP:WHATEVER)

Comment: I can't see any valid reason for deleting this article. Firstly, it is the first major incident attributed to a specific type of aircraft, and it has now seen the grounding of the type within one airline's fleet. Further, each of the points within  can be easily countered or have no validity given the nature and veracity of the incident. Further, standing practice is that articles for all accidents of a significant nature, regardless of if they are air, plane, sea or rail start within hours of their occurrence, despite the recentisim points raised, and the information within them develops over time. Having the article provides the space for the article to develop over time, and helps to give articles structure and form. Deletion of this article would only seek to create problems down the track
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: So another Qantas jet had an engine failure: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11702365. Does that have its own article yet? Maybe such incidents could just get a line in the Qantas article and the article about the airplane (the latest was a Boeing 747-400). Maybe there should also be an article every time a tire blows on landing, if it is in the news. Or maybe we could just stick with  and realize that this is an encyclopedia about things of timeless notability, rather than "This Week In The News
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The incident '''does not''' meet WP:AIRCRASH - which I will quote verbatim - ''"If the accident or incident matches criteria '''only in this section''', then coverage should normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline"'' Criteria A1 (first in type) and A5 (grounding) are both in the same section, meaning that this info is more appropriately included in the A-380, RR Trent and Quantas pages, rather than it's own article. And while AIRCRASH is just an essay, it is the only current go-to project specific information for informing on the  portion of the  Guideline, which is the site-wide consensus backed interpretation of the GNG presumption and #NEWS policy for breaking news type articles, which this clearly is. And while this incident is for obvious reasons getting global coverage, it is far too early to say with any confidence or even proof, that this incident is not a basic violation of NOT#NEWS by meeting the  and  clauses of EVENT. Even in terms of , the case is weak (and no, in depth coverage in sources like the ''Aviation Herald'' as well as coverage in the news, does ''not'' count as diversity for air incidents
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EFFECT||WP:EVENT||WP:NOT||WP:INDEPTH||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:DIVERSE)