Deletion of Sun Way Flight 4412

Comment: While I'm neutral on this one, it's hard to deny that it's '''''' applies pretty clearly.  I'm surprised it still hasn't closed
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Lunalet is an obvious impersonator, he is simply parrotting what I said in the last Afd. Anyone who really thinks I would be stupid enough to be socking with so many out there eager for my blood, has a screw loose. I do indeed have a regular impersonator who wants me banned, but I have to say he is not usually as thorough or persistent as this guy. However, it should be noted that what he says is correct, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lugnuts&diff=prev&oldid=399475182 this and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ravenswing&diff=prev&oldid=399475162 this by Taqi Haider is most definitely innappropriate ing, and Lugnuts has indeed just copied and pasted his rationale from the previous debate into this one. This seems to be a new variation on his old Afd technique of just copying and pasting the sentence 'keep, meets N through RS and V', or somthing equally VAGUEy and pointless, into Afds. I won't bother copying and pasting my critque of his rationale here, he didn't feel it necessary to respond over there, so I doubt he will answer it here, but funnily enough, it is equaly valied here as it was there
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)

Comment: Where are the |lasting effects and |continued coverage? I'm not seeing http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbs=nws:1&&q=Flight+4412+Sunway+karachi anything
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EFFECT||WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE)

Comment: per Wackyace. The references seem sufficient for this article to meet  and the topic meets the inclusion criteria at  (which, while only an essay, is widely accepted and has been successfully used as a reason to ''delete'' articles about minor incidents in the past
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:AIRCRASH)

Comment: Loath though I am to agree with Mick, his reasoning that he would have to be insane to engage in rabid sockpuppetry in exact mimicry of his style and stance makes good sense, and we can safely dismiss the SPA as a pointy ''agent provocateur.''  As far as anything else goes, I wouldn't in his shoes have the stones to raise  allegations, but given the overwhelming consensus against him, it's time to close this AfD.  Six months from now, if there hasn't been any lasting impact from this event, it might be appropriate to file again.  Mere ''hours'' after the crash, it most certainly isn't.  If these rancorous day-after-the-crash AfDs are, as Grsz opines, tedious and annoying, how about we not file them quite so quickly?  No one's handing out awards for speediest AfDs filed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINTY)

Comment: per .  That policy was never intended to exclude recent notable events simply because they are recent and notable.  It's more about routine coverage of routine events.  A commercial flight going down with multiple fatalities is a relatively rare event, contrary to the nomination statement.  Each event like this draws a significant investigation with a lot of in-depth coverage and analysis.  World-wide flight regulation agencies will open cases on such foreign events precisely because they are worth tracking in terms of their enduring impact.  If this were some general aviation crash then I would probably vote differently
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per arguments provided by Mjroots and Lugnuts.  hardly the routine news that  applies to
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Notable incident that easily meets inclusion per the |general notability guidance
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)