Deletion of Airline complaints (2nd nomination)

Comment: per nom. As I argued in the previous AfD, it is simply 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN)

Comment: The  issue has already been discussed previously and it has been shown that it does '''not''' apply to this article.  If you disagree, please explain specifically how it applies if mentioning it as a reason for deletion.  You will have difficulty doing so since '''no''' part of this article is ''Original Research'', a main component of .  Regarding  as a reason for deletion, it is also incorrect since this is, in fact, a very notable subject matter.  This subject matter is notable enough for the US Department of Transportation to have a ''http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/problems.htm specific section'' for "Airline Complaints" and for them to ''http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/reports/index.htm publish specific Airline Complaints figures'', therefore meeting the '''''"Significant Coverage"''''' criteria of .   Considering the current size of the article, it is also very well referenced with '''10''' citations from highly reputable sources, meaning it is '''''"Reliable"''''' for the purposes of .  If you search http://www.google.com/search?q=%22airline+complaints%22+OR+%22airline+complaint%22 Google for "Airline Complaints OR "Airline Complaint", there are over 60,000 ''very specific'' search results from very reputable sources and if you search the same terms within http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22airline+complaints%22+OR+%22airline+complaint%22&btnG=Search+Archives&num=20&ned=us&lr= Google News, there are over 450 ''very specific'' articles, also from very reputable sources, therefore meeting the '''''"Sources"''''' criteria of .  Since most of the sources are '''''"Independent of the Subject"''''', this subject matter also meets the 4th and last criteria for , completing its notability.  As for the article itself, it is both informative and helpful as it stands, and will become more so as it grows.  Is there room for improvement?  Absolutely, and that's a prima facie reason for keeping it.  At the end of the day, there is no ''real'' justification for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:SYNTH||WP:NN||WP:NN||WP:NN||WP:NN||WP:NN)

Comment: seems to be quite a major / job
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:OR)