Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243

Wind Jet Flight 243

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243

Wind Jet Flight 243 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-fatal air accident which fails WP:EVENT by virtue of having zero evidence of historical notability or significance. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, for now. There seems to be this bizarre idea on AfD that no deaths = no notability, but that has no basis in policy or in practice. It is verifiable, has received significant coverage in third-party sources, and there's no harm in waiting a few months to see if anything comes of it. It's unreasonable to ask for evidence of historical significance 3 days after the fact. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Make your mind up - is it notable already, or are you asking for permission for it to hang around because it's not doing any harm, so that we can assess it later on? The first approach to deletion is perfectly valid, but the second one isn't. MickMacNee (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Hmmm. I'm going to have to break down your vote here further and respond, because it looks like we already have a game of follow the leader emerging.

  "There seems to be this bizarre idea on AfD that no deaths = no notability"

  It's nice to know you think that, but it's quite irrelevant, as I did not nominate it for deletion for that reason, it is provided for background information only. The relevant page is WP:EVENT, which has no such requirement, or exclusion, for that matter.

  "but that has no basis in policy or in practice."

  per the above - it was an irrelevant point in the first place, so there was no need to start dredging up other irrelevant articles off the back of it to somehow imply that this article has some sort of accepted precedent behind it. It does not.

  "It is verifiable, has received significant coverage in third-party sources,"

  this is simply a WP:VAGUEWAVE....presumably to WP:N, but without a link, we (and others already), are just guessing at what you might mean.

  "and there's no harm in waiting a few months to see if anything comes of it."

  this is a classic non-argument - WP:NOHARM. There is every harm in turning Wikipedia into a news article waiting room. The Article Incubator is where we keep the articles that have potential, but cannot be shown to be worhty of inclusion yet....or better yet, your sandbox, if you are volunteering to take responsibility for it....

  "It's unreasonable to ask for evidence of historical significance 3 days after the fact"

  It is unreasonable to expect Wikipedia to temporarily host articles so that they can hang around just on the off-chance they might become notable in a few months, and then expect others to go around cleaning up the inevitable mess and leftover cruft such a misguided approach to the deletion policy would, and does, create. There is nothing unreasonable about this at all, this is how Afd works all day every day, and it is precisely this sort of article that WP:EVENT was written for, so you can hardly ignore it if you think it's requirements are inconvenient.

  MickMacNee (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep agree with Kafziel. Shiva (Visnu) 00:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  You really don't have any opinions of your own on the matter? None at all? Are we playing follow the leader here today? MickMacNee (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Please be calm and respectful - do not badger/insult other people just because they disagree with you. Shiva (Visnu) 01:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  This is an Afd. It is not disrespectful or badgering to expect you to have your own opinion on the matter. Given that your only contribution here is to agree with a contradictory rationale, whose actual intention w.r.t. the issue is still open to interpretation, I should think that it is more respectful for you to realise the deficiency of making such a vote, and correct it, rather than implying wrongdoing in others. MickMacNee (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  I strongly advise you to adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA out of respect for Wikipedia and your fellow Wikipedians. Rudeness and belligerence only drown out the opinion you are expressing. Shiva (Visnu) 02:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  And I strongly advise you to read the pages you are linking to. If you think for one second I am going to let you wave around NPA as if that is remotely relevant here, you are quite wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as per sound reasoning provided by Kafziel--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Arguing that it is both notable right now, and that it should be kept to see if it becomes notable, is not sound reasoning in the slightest. It is positively unsound reasoning infact. You would have more chance of having your vote counted if you didn't just piggy back other people's thoughts, when it's not even clear what policy or guideline is backing up their rather vague and WP:ATA-like opinions. MickMacNee (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

well Mick if you looked at your track record at recent AfDs and mine it would be very clear who has a problem getting their !votes counted. And let me boldly predict that there is no way in hell this article will be deleted.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Treating it as a game as ever WR. I'm guessing you put as much thought into this Afd as all the others based on the evidence. I am pretty sure that whatever happened in those other debates, the outcomes really had nothing to do with anything you might have said, which is generally not a lot, as you can only seem to manage these sorts of 'per x' votes anyway, and then fall back on this ridiculous grandstanding act of yours. MickMacNee (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes and all your WP:WL got you nowhere MMN. looks like people are giving more weight to my 'per X' !vote than anything you have to say. I dont think that you get it that nobody cares what your arguments are anymore. this AfD is another fine example. needless waste of time IMO--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No, they are in their wisdom giving weight to Kafziel's opinion, without expansion or clarification. Whether that is a good idea or not, we shall see. But with your comment here demonstrating just how little thought you put into this Afd, I'm pretty sure your particular influence on the closer's reading of it has just dropped to zero, if it wasn't that low before. You have nothing to offer here except pulling irrelevant acronyms like WL out of your ass and being a boring grandstander. MickMacNee (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee - I know you have been warned before, but please read WP:CIVIL and adhere to it. Sniping at everyone here who disagrees with you and using uncivil language like you did here adds nothing to this AfD, which is an obvious WP:SNOW case. - Ahunt (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of things add nothing to an Afd. This warning was just one of them. You should just concentrate on not making the sort of reading mistakes like you did down below, and let others worry about their knowledge, or lack of, of the contents of CIVIL. MickMacNee (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps when you have time you can add an update here as to how well the campaign of harassment, insults and vitriol is moving this AfD forward. - Ahunt (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And this is moving things forward is it? And kindly do not use terms like harassment here, that has a real meaning here, and it does not even come close to what your apparent issue with me is. MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, even if no body died in this accident, the 123 people are very lucky to be alive. Flight 243 touched the ground at only few yards from the rocks and sea and this accident could have been a disaster. If we don't want to consider the 20 walking wounded we could at least look at the fact that an Airbus 319, worth millions of dollars (not italian lire), wont ever fly again because its structural damages. Also, we need to consider that this accident was caused by "windshear", very common at Palermo airport (between sea and mountain), and the problem could happen again. Have a article/record on wikipedia of this type of accident has more than one reason to exist.--Sal73x (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Well yes - it is entirely possible, and appropriate, to have a record of the incident on Wikipedia, without actually having an article on the incident. The idea that an aircraft was written off (citation?) means that an incident is automatically notable, is an entirely disputed one at present - can you imagine the implications of having an article for every single airliner write-off on Wikipedia? It's a recipe for disaster just like this incident, and it's simply not our mission. That content disaster can hopefully be avoided with a bit of common sense, and adherence to WP:EVENT, otherwise, why did lots of editors spend the time writing it and getting it approved, for it to be ignored? If there is an issue with Palermo and windshear in particular, then that should be being treated within a separate article, not by documenting every near-disaster on it's own page, but I don't see it, if it already exists. And if it doesn't, then creating that article rather than defending this one, is what should be under consideration. MickMacNee (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete - We do not have articles on bus crashes. I fail to see why this is any more notable. Not enough media coverage either. I really do not understand why there are single articles on these minor incidents. It would be much better if there was a monthly or yearly article to document in reasonable detail each crash. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep This accident is notable for these reasons; It is the first major accident suffered by Wind Jet (and therefore the worst/most significant). The accident closed the airport for almost two days. Should the aircraft be declared a hull-loss, it will also be the first in-service hull-loss accident for the A319 (another A319 was written off in a maintenance accident in 2003). Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note Wikiprojects notified. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The closer should note that Mjroots is the article creator, and that this definition of notability is completely of his own making, it has no support in any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and does not even have support of the Aviation project. The factors he describes here are not even worthy of their own article according to WP:AIRCRASH, the Aviation Project's own notability essay. He has also completely failed to show how any of these facts are considered worthy of notice by external sources, rather than in his own personal opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • No, MickMacNee, my definition of notability is V x many RSs = N. There is no "rule" that sources have to be non-specialist, or from English Language publishers that I am aware of. AFAIK, all sources used in the article are reliable. Mjroots (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
      • You call that a definition? I call it a WP:VAGUEWAVE. For the purposes of Afd it's completely meaningless, unless you can demonstrate with some actual words and some actual evidence from the actual article, that you appreciate the concepts behind the linked pages and how they apply here, and even better, why you think EVENT is completely ignorable, as if it was written in invisible ink, instead of being the appropriate interpretation of 'V * RS' in this case. So far, you've completely failed to do that. As a notability 'rule', it could be applied to justify inclusion of anything and everything on Google News right now. If you did actually take the time to review and understand the linked pages behind your defintion, you would see that yes, they do actually explain how just relying on specialist sources is not objective evidence of notability. The specialist sources used in this article write lengthy reports on the most trivial of incidents, that would never ever get a Wikipedia article, so pointing to them and waving your rule around is hardly objective evidence in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
        • From WP:EVENT - WP:GEOSCOPE, the accident has received coverage at least at national level. WP:INDEPTH, the coverage has been in depth. WP:DIVERSE, the coverage has been diverse. WP:BREAKING, It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer - I delayed creating the article as it was not immediately clear how badly damaged the aircraft was. My opinion is that it is likely to be declared a write-off, but even if it isn't, this is still a significant accident. I haven't mentioned the other sections under WP:EVENT as the position is either "we don't know yet" or "that doesn't apply here". Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
          • As I and other people have already pointed out with detailed explanations, the coverage is not in depth, and it is not diverse. The depth of coverage is simple news reports, which do not cover the incident in anything other than in a completely routine news reporting manner. The (lack of) diversity of coverage comprises just those news reports, and specialist aviation sources. And as already explained at tiresome length, for air accident current events, this is not impartial evidence of notability or significance. Even if you link to a section in EVENT using a shortcut, if all you are doing is saying 'it meets this', without demonstrating you know how or why, then this is still a pointless VAGUEWAVE. You only delayed writing the article until it met your personal standard of notability for being a 'serious crash', and now you are trying to bolt on definitions of coverage which it does not meet, and looks like it never will. MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
            • My final words on this AfD: MickMacNee, you have a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and need to stop flogging the WP:DEADHORSE. Even when I attempt to show that it does meet WP:EVENT, you dismiss the idea. I've every confidence that the closing editor will fully evaluate all comments and having done so, make the right decision re this AfD. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
              • You are quite correct, I don't like poor or invalid Afd arguments, and getting a proper expression of an actual case for keeping this article out of you does often feel like beating a dead horse. If anyone doubts that your points from the RS*V 'definition' and beyond are not completely wavey, then just go and pick any random item from Google News and apply them to whatever random junk you found. I guarantee you won't find a delete in the pile. Even if you don't know when you are waving Mjroots, I'm sure the closer will. If not, he should know where it's going, if he does not convincingly break it down for all the non-surfers in here. MickMacNee (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact that we don't get articles about disastrous bus crashes means we need those, not that we should delete articles about serious aviation incidents. __meco (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Do you think that is a remotely realistic stance? See here for an indication as to whether articles on serious bus crashes are needed or not, it's an Afd on the most serious bus crashes in the UK in recent memory, and it's not heading for a keep so far. MickMacNee (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Merge to the airline's article. The problem with this being a stand-alone article is that all the coverage comes either from industry-specific sources or from the Italian press. If it had sources from around the world it may be worth keeping, but I don't think it passes WP:EVENT without it. That said, some of the content should be included at the airline's article and the title retained as a redirect. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note article also has sources from USA/Canada and Ireland. Mjroots (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, not sure how I missed that. The trouble is that it isn't really significant coverage, at only 100 words. I can't see any US coverage, and the Irish stuff won't open (probably a problem at my end). The only other international source I could find was this, but that's also very short. I'm forced to conclude that the majority of the interest in this has been limited to national and industry-based sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note The fact that the Italian press has given cover to this accident for the lasts 5 days should be already a good reason to make this accident worthy of a page on wikipedia. About US coverage, here are two more articles about "Flight 243", here1 and here2.--Sal73x (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:EVENT generally requires either long-lasting coverage (which five days isn't) and/or substantial international coverage or impact, plus "diversity of sources". The two sources you've linked to are indeed from the USA, but one's an industry-specific magazine (so not diverse) and the second is 40 words in a blog (so not significant, and probably not even reliable). What we really need is something like CNN or the New York Times, but I couldn't find anything of that calibre. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kafziel. Edward321 (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - complies with the criteria at WP:AIRCRASH in that it is "Airline - First, deadliest, or most significant accident for a particular airline" - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, but no, this is completely wrong, and should be totally ignored by the closer. What the essay actually says is: "If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline". MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right, I misread that essay and so will stick to guidelines instead of essays - Keep - complies with WP:N in that sufficient reliable third-party references establish notability and the incident is serious enough to have a stand-alone article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

'Complies with WP:N' is just a WP:VAGUEWAVE, and completely ignores the fact that N is a presumption, not a right. And you can hardly claim with any credibility that the incident is serious enough to have a stand-alone article, when defining exactly that, is the actual purpose behind the AIRCRASH essay. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Well constructed article which also good references. Just because no one died don't make it not notable. Bjmullan (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  And being well constructed and having good references doesn't make it notable either. Again to the closer, I did not nominate this for deletion because nobody died, so kindly ignore any and all insinuations of this sort, they are completely irrelevant. The nomination rationale is WP:EVENT, and voters should be adressing it directly, or otherwise giving proper reasons why this should be kept, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD. MickMacNee (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The article covers a well know event in Italy User:Lucifero4
• Merge. As the event is too recent for its significance to become clear, it should be merged into Wind Jet as a new section until its status is clear. WP:BREAKING recommends that "editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable." Jimmy Pitt talk 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. A serious aviation accident that could have easily been much worse and I like many readers will want to know what the cause was. This is not a 'vote' BTW but a personal opinion formed after some time on WP and experience at AfD. Surpasses the WP:SIGCOV requirements for an article by some margin in my view. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  (e/c)It doesn't take a separate article for Wikipedia to be still able to serve that purpose. MickMacNee (talk)

• The suggestion that the accident may be due to windshear might get the accident some sort of long term notability, otherwise I would be tempted to merge with the airline.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no requirement that air crashes need to be fatal in order for them to be notable. Air crashes of this nature are invariably investigated very thoroughly, far more thoroughly than bus crashes. Landing short of the runway is unusual, very perilous, and not a simple routine "snag". For comparison, a similar accident is British Airways Flight 38 which did not bring about any fatalities either. Note coverage in more than news sources, e.g. [1], so this is not a NOT#NEWS case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  Once again, some notes for the closer on this editor's keep rationale, to make sure we are all on the same page on this Afd, and avoid a DRV.

  There is no requirement that air crashes need to be fatal in order for them to be notable.

  This is not the reason for deletion, this is completely irrelevant. The relevant criteria is EVENT, nothing more, nothing less.

  Air crashes of this nature are invariably investigated very thoroughly, far more thoroughly than bus crashes.

  Why is this relevant? All aircrashes are investigated very thoroughly, even ones that the most inclusionist of inclusionists would agree are not notable. This is completely irrelevant to this Afd.

  Landing short of the runway is unusual, very perilous, and not a simple routine "snag".

  So? Does this statement reference any guideline about whether we consider such incidents notable or not? No, it does not. Short landings might be rare, but they are common enough for them not to be considered automatically notable. If anybody disagrees, please by all means, provide actual proof that they are. The only available topic specific resource on how serious an incident must be to have an article is the Aviation Project's essay WP:AIRCRASH, and that does not mandate creating this article.

  For comparison, a similar accident is British Airways Flight 38 which did not bring about any fatalities either.

  So? Other crap exists - does the voter provide any evidence that this is a case where we can validly make an Other Stuff argument? Not in the slightest The BA38 article meets EVENT, because that article contains evidence of lasting significance and historical importance. This is because the cause was a design flaw, which led to a design change. The only comparison between the two incidents is that nobody died and it was pretty serious - nobody in their right mind can surely believe this is what makes a valid Other Stuff argument. If they do, speak up now.

  Note coverage in more than news sources, e.g. [2], so this is not a NOT#NEWS case.

  Why are we noting it? As has already been stated, the fact that the Aviation Herald has written about this incident is completely irrelevant. If anybody cares to peruse that site, they cover many more incidents than would ever ever get their own Wikipedia article. It is irrelevant.

  So, in short, what are we left with here with this vote? A failure to address the nomination, and a failure to give any other policy backed reason for keeping the article. MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Per all the other Keep entries - no need to repat the same points over and over and over and over. BilCat (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC))
• Keep: the national and international coverage (in the Clare Herald, Canadian Press and the aviation press in general) more than meet WP:Event. Additionally, this accident (not incident as erroneously referred to above) is almost identical to the B-777 British Airways Flight 38 accident at London Heathrow Airport in 2008, where only by the GofG did every single passenger on board not die, but there was not a single fatality.

For your future reference, aviation authorities classify near events such as loss of separation or severe turbulence causing non-serious injuries as an 'incident'. An aircraft crash landing that causes serious injuries or structural damage is an 'accident'. When the landing gear collapsed on this particular aircraft, the wing spar structures, wing box and fuel compartments were undoubtedly severely damaged, and the Airbus will likely be a hull-loss, IMHO. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, can the closer please note the simple argument by assertion being used here, as to whether this 'clearly' meets wp:event or not. If there was any substance to this idea, there would surely be more explanation forthcoming, with actual reference to both the content of the sources and the guideline, not just this simple assertion. And I say again, how is an engine issue even remotely related to a wind sheear event? For the purposes of EVENT, and the Aviation Project's own essay, it is not. And the essay very clearly states this incident is not worthy of an article. And all this talk of survival by the 'grace of god' is simply examining the issue from pure news values, and there is zero actual hard evidence being offered up here that reliable sources treat this as relevant to the accident's lasting notability at all. We know some editors clearly do, but that's another matter entirely. The Clare Herald for example doesn't take a blind bit of notice of this aspect if it - it carried the story from a finance perspective, because Windjet was leasing the Irish registered plane. There is absolutely nothing significant or historically notable about that fact. The wire coverage is similarly devoid of any depth of treatment of this, or infact any other, aspect of this accident. It is entirely routine wire reporting. MickMacNee (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, due to long-term effects of the crash from the investigation being carried out, brings it beyond a single WP:EVENT, as well as being more than a WP:NOTNEWS case. C628 (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

  Why do you keep making this same point in every Afd? Every single air accident/incident prompts an official investigation. This is the law in every country. So unless you are arguing here for total inclusion of all aviation incidents no matter how trivial, which would be beyond the wildest dreams of the most inclusionist of editors surely, then for the purposes of this Afd, this is completely irrelevant. And if you are implying that the investigation is going to bring up some evidence of lasting effects or significance, this is of course simply an invalid vote, per WP:CRYSTAL. And once again for the benefit of the closer, can we please see some actual hard evidence for this simple assertion that this is more than a NOT#NEWS case. I'm certainly not seeing it, and it's not been added to the article in the grand total of the 16 edits it has received in the 5 days since the accident. Infact, I don't see any news coverage beyond 2 days after the event [3], which is exactly what you would expect in such an obvious case of basic and routine news reporting only. MickMacNee (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

  Because it reflects my interpretation of policy regarding this. C628 (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete MickMacNee said it in one. Petebutt (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Well sourced, and as has been said before, no deaths does not mean not notable. Sure it will never be FA material, but it seems good enough in my opinion. Also: MickMacNee: Your beheavior in this AfD is completely unacceptable. You have been uncivil in your responses and badgered anyone with a contradictory view. This is not how discussions should take place. You can post counter arguments, but don't go after the posters. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - verifiable and reliable sources seem to show a fair amount of notability. Kafziel sums my thoughts up nicely. → Clementina [ Scribble ] 03:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing more than a news story with no real notability. WP:NOTNEWS used to be a policy once. Resolute 04:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per NOTNEWS. --John (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Merge for the reasons given by Alzarian, as a first choice; delete, for the reasons and rebuttals by Mick MacNee as a second. A routine air incident with no evidence of enduring notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. The sources listed are very nearly routine, and the coverage shows no indication of being "long-lasting." A paragraph or so on the company's main page should suffice, unless some unique factor of the airport is in play, in which case it could go there as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete or transfer it to WikiNews. This incident is banal, and inconsequential, and quite lacking in encyclopaedic notability. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Ordinary news item. Currently and unlikely to be of historical significance. Coverage is not wide or in-depth enough to pass EVENT; no widespread international coverage. Christopher Connor (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Sumbuddi (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes it has got a flurry of coverage at the time of the incident, but it doesn't seem to have gone beyond that (no coverage in the last few days that I can see). There is simply no evidence that this is of any lasting significance. Quantpole (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. No lasting impact or importance demonstrated. Many of the keep calls are garden variety WP:ITSNOTABLE or WP:HARMLESS, and should be discounted accordingly. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. Historical notability is not existent, thus also fails WP:EVENT, for those saying keep and wait a few months to assess historical context I would argue that it would be more appropriate to delete and wait. J04n(talk page) 14:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Google news search returns about a dozen Enlgish-language plus another hundred non-English results from reliable sources, so it's notable. The article itself also has about a dozen references, so it's cited properly and therefere verifiable. What's the issue? Oh wait, "enduring" or "historical" notability? Why does that sound familiar? Like some sort of logical fallacy that I've heard of before? Oh, because it is, it's called "Raising the bar," or "Moving the goalpost." If it's not "enduringly" notable, we're free to revisit the issue in as many months or as few days as we like. Mtiffany71 (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my understanding is that WP:EVENT has been a guideline for over a year, and the mere fact that something gets hundreds of citations doesn't make it notable. For example--are those hundreds of results actually different stories, or are they the same story being replicated because of the use of a shared wire service? Measuring notability isn't about counting. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

From WP:EVENT

• "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..." The story has received international coverage.
• "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." So, as to whether or not there is enduring or historical notability, the guidelines appear to suggest that waiting to see how things unfold isn't an unreasonable position to take. Wikipedia is not crystal ball and neither are its editors.
• "Wikipedia's general notability guideline recommends that multiple sources be provided to establish the notability of a topic, not just multiple references from a single source" The independent sources for the Enlish language stories are the Canadian Press, AFP, Thomson Reuters, Air Transport Intelligence news, and ITAR-TASS. So there are multiple indpendent sources. Mtiffany71 (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)