The result was redirect to Continental_Airlines#Minor_incidents. While this incident does not have the same impact as a crash with several fatalities, it is still covered in various sources. However, a full article may be inappropriate and since the incident is already covered elsewhere, the reasonable choice is to leave a redirect there. Tone 13:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that an aircraft encountering turbulence in flight, resulting in no deaths and a small number of injuries is notable. If you look at the debate on incident notability on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability you will see that this would not meet any of the proposed notability criteria. Simple Bob (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's definition of notability is very simple: non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. In this case, there's non-trivial coverage from the BBC and from CNN, and I'm afraid those are definitely reliable sources.
Much though I respect Wikiproject Aviation, their thoughts about air crashes do not overrule the General Notability Guideline.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why, where I see an article at AfD and the GNG is passed, I tend to use strong, clear language to indicate that fact.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The aircraft was damaged and there was severe injuries reported. Zaps93 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I also just nominated Vueling Airlines Flight 9127 (Discussion) in which eight people (from more than 160) sustained minor injuries using the escape slide - an incident even less notable than this one. --Simple Bob (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the incident is already mentioned at Continental_Airlines#Minor_incidents (note the section title "Minor incidents"). Perhaps one solution is to merge some of the relevant information from this article into that section then delete this article. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deeply unimpressed by that News articles essay; the authors' thinking doesn't align with mine at all, so I shall disregard it.
WP:NTEMP opens with: "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources." Which seems, at least to me, to support keeping the article.
I can't help wishing these policies and guidelines were phrased in simple declarative sentences. "Grounds for inclusion are x, y, and z; grounds for deletion are a, b and c." Telling us "what Wikipedia is not" is, of course, a lot easier (which is probably why so many people spend so much time saying what Wikipedia isn't), but policies and guidelines phrased in the negative are far from easy to apply to specific cases.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally opposed to this attempt to undermine the general notability guideline. If we went around disregarding the basic notability guideline and deleting material regardless, then content creators could not check for themselves whether the material they propose to write is notable. They would need to go through a committee process before they started, or risk having their hard work summarily deleted.
The GNG is there to protect content creators, and I feel very strongly that it should prevail here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]