Deletion of 2012 Virginia Beach F/A-18 crash

Comment: as per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per .  This subject is already adequately covered in List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present).  Sustained in depth coverage doesn't look likely, nothing that cant be covered in that list
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Per . No evidence that this plane crash incident has any lasting notability. And  isn't a valid argument
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: per #G5|CSD G5, with no prejudice for recreation by an editor who isn't indef blocked for being a sockpuppet. Either we  or we don't.  Any collateral damage is small compared to rewarding sockpuppeting
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:DENY)

Comment: per #G5|CSD G5, or, if that must be denied, '''delete''' per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Very similar to previous incident 2008 San Diego F/A-18 crash - differences are that the investigation is incomplete and the casualty count is remarkably low. Lack of deaths doesn't make this automatically fit 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I don't care about sockpuppets, as long as the content itself is actually acceptable (it's the height of stupidity for us to run around deleting things that banned or blocked editors have created without considering the actual content). So, that taken care of, the only things to address are  and . NOTNEWS is quite subjective, and in my view this was a "significant current event" and therefore the standalone article is allowable within policy (opinions can vary of course, but I don't think that it's unreasonable to assume that an event that receives worldwide coverage meets the criteria). The point about "nobody killed" in AIRCRASH, and the section about military aircraft accidents, is intended to cover instances that are more "routine" than this. This acciden ''did'' involve "hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport" (although, substitute an entire residential neighborhood for airport) as well. In short, this was an unusual (read: notable) accident primarily due to the area which it impacted and because of the remarkable ''lack'' of loss of life involved.—&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:AIRCRASH)