Deletion of United Airlines Flight 967

Comment: First contribution from a new editor, welcome to Wikipedia.  That said, the passage of time shows that this is  rather than .  There is no comparison between this one and China Airlines Flight 006, which happened in 1985, and received very significant coverage at the time (pardon the pun) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,961948,00.html and which has been written about ever since http://books.google.com/books?id=B3ng54W3sQ8C&pg=PA81&dq=%22china+airlines%22+%22flight+006%22&hl=en&ei=Fn9hTMuxAoL-8AbD1Kj1CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CGEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22china%20airlines%22%20%22flight%20006%22&f=false (2008) http://books.google.com/books?id=tm_d85H_SnYC&pg=PA50&dq=%22china+airlines%22+%22flight+006%22&hl=en&ei=Fn9hTMuxAoL-8AbD1Kj1CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CGcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22china%20airlines%22%20%22flight%20006%22&f=false (2002).  We don't have to have a fatality in order to keep an air crash article-- sometimes, the notability lies in the fact that the quick thinking of someone else averted the disaster, such as in US Airways Flight 1549 -- but the days where an emergency landing was a guarantee of an article are long past
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:N)

Comment: Plane hit turbulence, some folks were injured, no fatalities. Per  and per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:AIRCRASH)