Deletion of UPS Airlines Flight 6

Comment: Meets , in that it has sufficient independent third party refs to establish notability, which is the deciding standard
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: See also . Just because other such articles exist is not good reason for keeping this one
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: See also  - just ''how'' can you be so sure that international news coverage will "continue to cover ... the investigation"? There's no way of telling. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball;  states "It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors. Many articles on events are created in anticipation of their notability. Anticipation is the creation of an article on a recent event with the expectation that it will meet inclusion guidelines, before the duration of coverage or any lasting effect is certain." This appears to be the case here. There is no proof that the eventual investigation's findings will be significant enough to meet inclusion guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:EVENT)

Comment: I count 15 keep !votes, seven of which are just votes, without a proper rationale behind them, one "Keep" vote from {{user|Sturmvogel 66}} without any reasoning, a "Keep per BilCat" from {{user|Mathmo}}, a keep from {{user|Gabinho}} without a "why" behind the rationale, a "waste of time" from {{user|Wikireader41}}, failure to state why from {{user|Spikydan1}}, {{user|Bzuk}} stating a keep per  without explaining why the article should be kept, a keep from {{user|Nimbus227}} without citing a policy, and {{user|Ahunt}} doesn't explain what it meets notability standards. And three delete !votes all explaining why it should be deleted and one exceedingly long comment from {{user|MickMacNee}}. I request the closing admin take into account all these !votes and the comment before closing this AfD and close based on the merit of the argument instead of the number of !votes/votes
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: We are invited to consider whether the article fails notability under the policy  which in turn asks whether the subject of the article has enduring otability.  then gives clarifying remarks which lead me to suspect this subject is "enduring". In the guideline otability it seems to me the only aspect by which this well-referenced article could "fail" is the general notability guideline where, because all five criteria seem to me to have been met, the article has a presumption of meeting the notability criterion for being kept. The matter is then referred to consensus. So, in this case there is no policy for deletion and we are asked to try and decide amongst ourselves whether the article is worth keeping. The matter becomes quite subjective. I happen to think the article is very well worth keeping and I note there are detailed bodies of such information for the UShttp://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/month.asp and UKhttp://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/publications/formal_reports.cfm, for example, aimed at a broad audience. For me, merely not liking articles about air accidents and observing that they are reported as news, is nowhere near enough to sustain a delete argument. I think this nomination is unhelpful to the encyclopedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: as per Mjroots. yet another waste of time by an editor who doesn't seem to have read 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTLAW)

Comment: and after the numerous comments putting this AFD into context, I am invoking 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOWBALL)

Comment: It is not just "routine news coverage" as defined in . Routine news coverage for a plane crash would just be a short notice that a plane has crashed, with some basic facts about the flight, number of deaths etc. (like the typical coverage after crashes of small GA planes in local newspapers). The widespread coverage in this case (Google news mentions >1300 articles) however includes comprehensive speculation about the cause, comparison to other crashes; there are already follow-up articles about the identification of the victims and discovery of a flight recorder as well as the beginning of an investigation, indicating that there will be further follow-up coverage. The crash is therefore at least "very likely to be notable" per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:EVENT)