Deletion of Qantas Flight 1

Comment: Easily passes  with very significant coverage. It was written about years afterward, as late as 2010.http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2001/0425/world/kfauidcwau/ http://books.google.com/books?id=ohjZXuvVTc0C&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=qantas+runway+bangkok&source=bl&ots=Teh-6VnRlm&sig=1Eh0o39sFkUBqyU9QMWYaj2zzI4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OkBBUP3WEeSiiQLJ0oGoDg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=qantas%20runway%20bangkok&f=false  WP:AIRCRASH is simply an essay
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Large aircraft with 410 people on board. Highly notable per . If the absence of fatalities renders this non-notable then US Airways Flight 1549 is also non-notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: even though it might only be considered a minor incident to aviation buffs, it clearly passes the  due to reams of third-party coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: What the ex-employee said is known as . As for the page view statistics,  applies
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:POPULARPAGE)