Deletion of Wall Street panic of May 6, 2010

Comment: per Mandsford. Obviously notable event by all definitions, and let's stop using NOTNEWS as a blanket excuse to delete whatever people |do not like
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per .  And "panic" is a highly subjective word, considering what happened
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per nom and . No sign at the moment that this event will have any lasting significance and if it's relevant it can be included in relevant articles on financial crisis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

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

Comment: Just as the market is now being moved by gross reflex action, so we have here a deletion nomination being made as a reflex, without the proper consideration and discussion laid down by our |deletion process.  The article was proposed for deletion within an hour of its creation  and there was no preliminary discussion of this.  When the |prod was removed, there was still no discussion and the article still does not have a talk page.  Bringing the issue to AFD should be a last resort, not an immediate escalation.  We have several articles which cover this general topic area such as Algorithmic trading and it is our |editing policy to keep good sourced information so that we may improve topics like this.   excludes mundane news like weather forecasts and traffic reports, not remarkable occurrences which are explicitly noticed and acted on by the most important people in the world.  Breaking news should be given time to mature before rushing to AFD so that the topic may be understood, the sources compiled, due diligence be done and good alternatives to deletion explored.  As recommended, new page patrollers should please patrol the bottom of the queue, not the top, so that they are dealing with articles that are at least a day old and so have had time to develop
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:PROD||WP:PRESERVE||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Not everything in the news is barred by .  The working title isn't very good, and there may well be a meatier article than this one, since it isn't unusual for several editors to be starting  an article independently of each other.  This one, however, has the makings of historical significance.  Unlike most Wall Street anomalies, this one was triggered by an error and compounded by a computer; is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission; is leading to calls for reform of "high frequency trading" in the way that computer programs are used in buying and selling; etc. etc.  http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&ned=us&q=computer+wall-street.  While most of the Dow's price fluctuations aren't newsworthy, this one was a drop of more than 1,000 points (10 percent)  in a matter of minutes.  It's notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Just because something is in the news, does not mean it falls under |NOTNEWS. As Edison has stated, this was a drop for the record books, which gives it the appearance (at least at this time) of lasting notability. Whether this notability is real or illusory is impossible to tell this close to the actual event. Keeping the article now, allowing it to be worked on, and then perhaps brought back here for re-examination later would be the most prudent course of action
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Minor blip in the daily news feed.   is in place to cover items of passing, trivial interest
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)