Deletion of Qantas Flight 72

Comment: There's a big difference between an incident and an accident.  In an accident there is always an official investigation, at least in the industrialised world.  It may take some time, but once started, an analysis will be done at a far better standard of fact-checking than our usual .  If an article remains just a stub for two or three years during the investigation, where's the harm
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Though it hurts me to say this, I must say delete per . A Ryanair article similar to this was deleted a few weeks ago
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per |Wikipedia is not a list of air disasters that didn't happen
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Ten people getting injured in a transportation incident is not the stuff encyclopedia articles are made of. Wikipedia is not a "news of the week" site. I agree with the essay  and would delete this on the basis that news organizations have different criteria for what they put on the air or in the paper from what belongs in an encyclopedia, which may be tittiliating or may recall some recent more serious incident, but which lacks any real historical interest or impact. The policy #NEWS similarly says not all news events warrant their own encyclopedia article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOT)

Comment: Airlines and aircraft doesn't create it's own clear air turbulence (Caused by weather nothing else) which causes it to drop altitude and again the media will just use this when it's not even the fault of the airline. QF30 is different to this incident and should be used to compere as QF30 was caused by a fault and will always have a significant lasting impact unlike QF72 which will be short lived and will not have an impact on the airline industry. Wikipedia is clearly not |news
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Though I want all airline incidents to have an article, it can't be done as the rules work against it. According to , ''"it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability."'' There are other accidents like this who don't have any article, so why does this one get one. It does not get one
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: More people get hurt worse than that in multi-vehicle car accidents and structure fires every day, and those incidents do not get encyclopedia articles. I do not see where  says that every airline incident requires an encyclopedia article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: After an incident occurs, it may not be immediately perceived as |notable, but as time passes, this incident may very well prove that it is in fact notable.  I also realize that there are other incidents without articles, but .  Arguably, the article does not meet notability guidelines.  But, instead of deletion (a drastic measure), I believe that the article should be improved; it could add more information about the impact of the incident on Australian aviation and cite more independently verifiable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: I don't think #NEWS applies.  We have an accident in which up to 74 people have been injured, up to 44 of those needing a hospital visit, with 14 of those needing airlifting to a major hospital at the flight's intended destination.  This is a highly abnormal event in the context of the Airbus A330, in the context of Qantas and in the context of Australian civil aviation.  Just because there is media hype around doesn't automatically mean the underlying accident isn't notable, not does it automatically mean it satisfies #NEWS.  Regardless of cause, this is clearly an event of enduring notability in at least three contexts.  In regards to your other comment, I haven't queried any editor other than yourself and it was a genuine question. Not that I see what the issue is - this is a discussion, not a vote and there's nothing wrong with querying the arguments.  The queries that have been made are trying to encourage the fleshing out of arguments and reasonings, which is part of a healthy AfD process
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)