Deletion of Qantas Flight 30

Comment: There is a great amount of international interest, especially in the United States where Boeing is headquartered, of the the cause of the damage as this could impact all 747-400 series aircraft, much in the same way the structural failure of United Airlines Flight 811 caused modifications to all early generations 747s.  There is no _BE_DEATHS guideline to our inclusion standards as a lot of the delete voters near the top seem to imply (ie "No one even got injured").  If that were the case, the British Airways Flight 9 and the Gimli Glider articles are doomed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:MUST)

Comment: Surely any assessment of notability is a one time thing. i.e. notable now = notable forever: per the notability guideline, we do not revisit an article once it has been established as notable and then delete ''if'' certain developments don't happen. That would be the violation of  here if anything, and also a bit of |crystall ballery
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Widespread media coverage means a wealth of |reliable sources, which means that the event is notable and |verifiable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: The international coverage, the challenge to Qantas's safety record and coming so close to the Qantas engineers' industrial action move the incident beyond  to establish notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: Clearly a noteworthy event, with ongoing ramifications for the Australian aviation industry and flagship airline. I don't subscribe to the interpretation of  being touted above, and disagree with such rapid deletion based on such an interpretation of same
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The investigation has not been concluded or published yet, so any comments about explosive decompression are |original research and do not meet Wikipedia stds for |reliability. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Socrates2008
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RELY)

Comment: per . No deaths, no injuries, no evidence of lasting notability beyond a couple of news cycles. By all means mention in the Qantas article - we do that already - but no need for a separate article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: It is an accident, and agreed with the above points of satisfying  and the fact there shouldn't be fatalties/injuries for inclusion. Have seen similar articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: per #NEWS and recreate if this turns out to have wider implications
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: To me the article satisfies  easily and (although not as relevant) the comments on  as well anyway.  The incident has - for the time being - been classed as a Serious Incident by the ATSB on the http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/aair200804689.aspx initial basic incident report.  It involves not merely the loss of some fairing panels, but rather these appear to have been lost due to a significant rupture of the aircraft's skin.  This rupture resulted in an explosive decompression, which is a rare and significant event.  Obviously there will be a glut of media coverage at this time, but this includes signficant photographic evidence, video evidence, first hand passenger accounts and airport official accounts of the incident, on top of statements from Qantas and the ATSB.  Regardless of the root cause and the inevitable ATSB report, this is ''already'' a article about a notable event.  Regarding  - the event involved serious damage to the aircraft, satisfying one of the example criteria on that project page.  Being repairable does not mean it is not serious damage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:AIRLINES)

Comment: per Rob.au. |Addeum : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7525233.stm BBC, http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/07/25/jet.emergency/index.html CNN, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/asia/26qantas.html?em&ex=1217131200&en=e726f1ec04f80065&ei=5087%0A NYT, http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/07/25/qantas-boeing-emergency-markets-equity-cx_po_0725markets15.html Forbes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: meets . Honestly, could you guys start actualy building articles rather than simply deleting them? I thought Qantas had a reputation of havindg no accidents, though that may be just me. --I'm an '''''Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: I highly doubt this discussion will end in anything other than a no consensus, but my two cents and gut feel is that this is going to be forgotten about by the public in a week or so.   and all that.  Certainly would be appropriate to expand the brief article on wikinews:Hole_in_fuselage_causes_Qantas_flight_to_make_emergency_landing|wikinews though
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per #NEWS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per  - "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". BBC, Reuters, ASN, ATSB, NY Times, all cover it. This is in the same category as Aloha Airlines Flight 243|Aloha 243 and United Airlines Flight 811|United 811, it was just fortunate it was part of the baggage fuselage and not passenger compartment
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: For crying out loud, does every aviation incident (including those without any fatalities or even injuries) need an article now? #NEWS|Wikipedia is not the place for news reports
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)