Deletion of United Airlines Flight 328

Comment: Hard to say, it's only been one day since this has happened. But virtually every news story I've read has explicitly said that this kind of failure is rare -- in other words, it isn't speculation and it isn't |original research to say so. It seems that broader developments have started to happen as of a couple hours ago (example: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/22/united-engine-failure-faa-orders-inspections-pratt-whitney-engines.html), and I suspect there will be more tomorrow since it's no longer the weekend and news organizations will have staff
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: This was a highly unusual and notable event.  Yes, engine failures happen all the time, but not ones that rain large pieces of debris onto neighborhoods.  This event has already resulted in regulatory groundings of dozens of aircraft, and the full implications of the event are not yet known.  To say this event is not even notable is pretty silly.   doesn't remotely mean or say what some have suggested that it does.  In fact, it specifically says "Editors are encouraged... to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events".  That's what this is.  —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/75.166.130.121|75.166.130.121
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The nomination is based upon a |vague wave at .  What that policy actually says is "''routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia''".  The incident in question was not routine; it is in the news for the opposite reason – because it was quite dangerous, dramatic and unusual.  For an example of routine news about sports and celebrities, see template:ITN|In the News which currently leads on the main page with Djokovic winning a tennis tournament – a very routine occurrence, as he's won that event 8 times before.  This demonstrates that the policy is a dead letter and so it's the policy which should be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: as per User:RandomCanadian. Keeping it because something may eventually come out of this is . To put this event in perspective, there was incredibly the exact same event (but not same plane) this very same day in the Netherlands ''with'' injuries on the ground (https://nos.nl/artikel/2369529-boeing-verliest-stukken-metaal-bij-maastricht-twee-lichtgewonden.html), but no article. This just shows you how this article is merely a news copy, hence  IMO. Sufficiently covered at List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft#2021 and Denver International Airport
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SPECULATION||WP:NOTNEWS)