Deletion of United Airlines Flight 1175

Comment: the article has no established lasting impact, and the current wave of coverage by reliable sources can be attributed to the fact that this is a news story ''now''. However, per  and , this is not grounds for the maintenance of an article. It is also worth noting that whatever momentary coverage of the crash does exist is only a result of the fact that it occurred in the United States. It can not be stated at this point that this incident has any lasting historical significance (to do so would violate  in my view), and as such this non-fatal incident derives no lasting notability, and thereby fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RECENTISM||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS,  and fails to meet criteria suggested in  (a very sensible attempt to lay down criteria for aircraft accident articles). A non-notable incident promoted by the "we must have articles on absolutely everything" brigade. This incident would, however, warrant entries in relevant lists and aircraft articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AIRCRASH)

Comment: As many have stated above  applies here. While this type of failure is comparatively rare, the majority of the secondary sources don't provide a whole lot of info that would satisfy  apart from stating it happened and passengers were scared. MSM have a habit of sensationalising anything to do with air travel, and the 24 hour news cycle means there will always be a lot of coverage, especially when there is visible damage/passengers with mobile phone videos. In the absence of significant damage to the aircraft structure, such as in Qantas Flight 32 or even Southwest Airlines Flight 3472 it appears to have been a fairly straightforward engine failure and I could argue  applies here too
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG||WP:MILL)

Comment: A single day news item which is unlikely to generate ongoing coverage, but at any rate, it ''hasn't'' generated on going coverage ''yet''. We clearly lack the will to speedy these things, so there is always going to be a race to put every incident from the day's news in an article, and thus there will always be these really quite unnecessary deletion discussions if  were to be taken seriously. Too many people can't figure out that "I get Ghits on news articles for something that happened yesterday" isn't good enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: AS per  and  as well as . A cowling latch failed or was left undone and then media goes wild as usual. No serious damage done, no injuries, no deaths and the aircraft landed safely
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG||WP:RUNOFTHEMILL)

Comment: Semi-viral video. Single new-cycle reporting. Engine loss is fairly common. No reason to expected this will have 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE)

Comment: per . A similar incident to Air France Flight 66, but this isn't an  argument: the coverage of that flight extended into the weeks. I think it's likely notable if the news coverage is durational, but we don't know that yet. By the time this AfD closes, it may well be notable. Not a great article at the moment, but not as obvious a delete as the nominator seems to believe it is on WP:N grounds
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:OSE)

Comment: per  - not at all a serious incident; coverage is routine and highly unlikely to have any lasting impact
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I can't see how the events in this article get anywhere even close to -  which says "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENTCRITERIA)