Deletion of FedEx Express Flight 1478

Comment: I see the above line of questioning (both) to be totally relevant and important. I am very appreciative to see questioning that is more productive that just a !vote because there was a "hull loss". It seems to me the "sliding scale" is more of a natural phenomenon from a routine "occurrence", to one with loss of lives, and including a hull loss or the added third criteria. The |coverage will certainly increase with the severity of an occurrence. "Just" a hull loss might not garner a stand alone article. For an example: A hurricane hits an airport and destroys 5 planes. This would not be note-worthy for standalone status of the aircraft. Annex 13 gives the definition of ''"...from the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until all such persons have disembarked"'', or as mentioned above "on scheduled services", and this is echoed at WP:AIRCRASH. It might be interesting to note that the above mentioned 2015 "non-newspaper article" was preceded by a https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fflightsafety.org%2Fap%2Fap_feb05.pdf 2005 article concerning CVD and neither resulted in any aviation rule changes that I am aware of. {{u|Onel5969}} the reason you don't hear of WP:AIRCRASH at AFD is because: {{tq|#1, it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles}} and {{tq|#2, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:COVERAGE)

Comment: Hull losses of airliners on scheduled services have an |established consensus as being notable. And as mentioned, 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CONSENSUS||WP:NOTTEMPORARY)