Deletion of Southwest Airlines Flight 1392

Comment: per the above arguments, article seems to meet basic 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as a major contributor to the page. It meets |GNG threefold, and plenty of other articles are also about an airline fault resulting in 1 death or less (per Carguychris
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: the arguments for deletion made here don't convince me, sorry - an incident's death count has little to do with its notability or lasting notability. The coverage received about this very unusual incident is more than routine or trivial, and easily passes . The fact that a security breach of this extent can happen in an airport in the United States, especially since the existence of the TSA, is alarming and adds to its significance. There is no doubt the findings of the ongoing investigations https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/05/12/business/ap-us-man-hit-on-runway.html will be extensively discussed by major media sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There is nothing here to indicate that there will be any lasting effects to this incident beyond the one death and some bent metal (which has likely already been repaired). This is exactly why we have the policy of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The subject clearly meets  and the three is adequate wide coverage about this subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This accident was notable as very unusual as involving a big airliner and with the location of the accident on a runway. But there is yet no proof of what really happens and if finally there is something interesting to learn so  unless we have significant continuing news coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: The incident involved a large transport-category aircraft and has attracted substantial national press coverage, so it meets general notability guidelines, despite the absence of injuries to persons aboard the aircraft. To cite two examples, Delta Air Lines Flight 89 and American Airlines Flight 910 meet  and have Wikipedia articles despite a lack of onboard injuries or significant damage to the airliner
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This is a good example of why articles on this sort of incident shouldn't be written on the day they happen. If the only additions to the article, in a year, are the name of the victim and "authorities could not determine what he was doing on the runway," are we going to go through another AfD in which a burst of routine coverage is used to argue that every plane incident is notable? Really, this is a case of : too many responses above are saying that it ''might'' prove notable based upon ongoing coverage which hasn't had a chance to happen yet. I'm not going to argue for deletion because it's obvious that's going to be ignored as it stands, but the incident is not, from what I've seen here, notable ''yet
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)