Deletion of 2009 New York City airplane scare

Comment: per #NEWS. Absolutely no historical notability. "Official investigations" into one thing or another are launched every half hour, that does not make them encyclopedic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The flaw with the not#news argument is that its based on a judgment call.  This subject is more complex than a routine news report on a "slow news day" about a fly over. Just yesterday The Guardian from the U.K publish another story indicating that significant coverage on RS is not an issue, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8486044. If you ask me, I choose the argument for inclusion based on |general notability over a judgment call of some wikipedians
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: no one will remember this in 1 months' time. Translation: 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: easily satisfies  (thousands of sources, major mentions, etc.) so the only question is OT#NEWS.  We truly don't know whether any recent thing will have lasting notability, and it is too early to be sure, so we are in the same position as any article involving a recent event.  Looking over the details this is the sort of incident that tends to have lasting notability.  The indications are that it is the intersection of a number of different subjects (the presidency, the air force, 9/11, New York, the war on terror), has gathered broad commentary from a lot of sources, and news coverage has increased rather than decreased from each day to the next.  It is not a frivolous random, tabloid-ish event of the sort normally covered by not#news.  Plus it does inform the reader to know about it.  This is a judgment call, but all in all it looks more likely than not to be notable.  If that proves wrong we can always delete it later.  This is a brand new article about an emerging event.  It should have been given a few days to mature.  As it stands, the article and the event will mature so that by the end of the AfD process we ought to have a better idea
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: fails 
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 #NEWS obviously. If anything, write a paragraph about it and put it in the September 11 attacks article. '''-''' ℅ &#10032
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Don't merge, it is already longer than  would allow within the 9/11 article itself, and can be expanded as the fallout over it continues (which is still ongoing and will likely result in staff firings). Event meets every |general notability guideline criteria; received significant, reliable, widespread coverage. This wasn't due to a "slow news day", this was a massive debacle. It isn't a one-off news story, either, as many news sources are repeatedly going back to cover the events that are unfolding as a result (Caldera may be sacked, for instance). Long articles in http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/04/28/gibbs_leaves_dismissal_on_the.html?wprss=44 ''Washington Post'' (1), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/28/AR2009042800346.html ''Washington Post'' (2), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/29/AR2009042900878.html ''Washington Post'' (3), http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/obama/2009/04/29/air-force-one-flyover-incident-an-embarrassment.html ''U.S. News and World Report'', http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/nyregion/28plane.html?_r=2&scp=7&sq=air%20force%20one&st=cse ''The New York Times'' (1), http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/nyregion/28plane.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=air%20force%20one&st=cse ''New York Times'' (2),  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518319,00.html ''Fox News'' (1), http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518368,00.html ''Fox News'' (2), http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-low-flying-plane,0,7635967.story ''Chicago Tribune'' (1), http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ny-txttime2812703129apr27,0,2767598.story ''Chicago Tribune'' (2), http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ny-nyside2812703198apr27,0,3175727.story ''Chicago Tribune'' (3), http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/04/29/flight_over_nyc_stirs_up_outrage/ ''Boston Globe'' (1), http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/04/28/airliner_fighter_jet_throw_scare_into_new_yorkers/ ''Boston Globe'' (2), http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/04/27/govt_plane_exercise_causes_scare_in_manhattan/ Associated Press (1). Shorter articles in http://adastrum.kansascity.com/?q=node/624 ''Kansas City Star'', http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-tab-low-flying-plane_28apr28,0,7961261.story ''Chicago Tribune'' (4), http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/04/air_force_one_photostunt_price.html ''Chicago Tribune'' (5), http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-us-low-flying-plane-white-house,0,6208040.story ''Chicago Tribune'' (6), ''http://story.birminghamstar.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/420d9e49bcaa69d0/id/495010/cs/1/ Birmingham Star'', ''http://blog.cleveland.com/letters/2009/04/lapse_of_judgment_led_to_a_fri.html The Plain Dealer (Cleveland)'', http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/29/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4977046.shtml CBS News, http://abcnews.go.com/search?searchtext=%22air%20force%20one%22&type= ABC News, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/04/27/source_white_house_was_updating_af_one_file_photo/ Associated Press (2), etc. Google News has http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Air+Force+One%22+flyover this from the past week.  says: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." That is surely not the case in this instance
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:WEIGHT||WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: It's been accepted that the  argument is a fallacy. In this case, we're seeing the exact opposite argument, where other stuff doesn't exist. That's just as fallacious as the converse
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)