Deletion of Wind Jet Flight 243

Comment: Delete''' per  and .  The sources listed are very nearly routine, and the coverage shows no indication of being "long-lasting." A paragraph or so on the company's main page should suffice, unless some unique factor of the airport is in play, in which case it could go there as well
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EVENT)

Comment: Nothing more than a news story with no real notability.   used to be a policy once
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to the airline's article. The problem with this being a stand-alone article is that all the coverage comes either from industry-specific sources or from the Italian press. If it had sources from around the world it may be worth keeping, but I don't think it passes  without it. That said, some of the content should be included at the airline's article and the title retained as a redirect
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS.  No lasting impact or importance demonstrated.  Many of the keep calls are garden variety  or , and should be discounted accordingly
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSNOTABLE||WP:HARMLESS)

Comment: This is exactly what  and  were designed to protect against. I'd call it disaster-porn, but it wasnt even a disaster. A plane landed short of a runway. No one was hurt until they were evacuating. This is deserving of coverage in an encyclopedia... how
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EVENT)

Comment: As the event is too recent for its significance to become clear, it should be merged into Wind Jet as a new section until its status is clear.  recommends that "editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BREAKING)

Comment: per . Historical notability is not existent, thus also fails , for those saying keep and wait a few months to assess historical context I would argue that it would be more appropriate to delete and wait
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EVENT)

Comment: due to long-term effects of the crash from the investigation being carried out, brings it beyond a single , as well as being more than a  case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: A serious aviation accident that could have easily been much worse and I like many readers will want to know what the cause was. This is not a 'vote' BTW but a personal opinion formed after some time on WP and experience at AfD. Surpasses the  requirements for an article by some margin in my view
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: the national and international coverage (in the Clare Herald, Canadian Press and the aviation press in general) more than meet vent.  Additionally, this accident (not incident as erroneously referred to above) is almost identical to the B-777 British Airways Flight 38 accident at London Heathrow Airport in 2008, where only by the GofG did every single passenger on board not die, but there was not a single fatality
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:E)