Deletion of 2019 Addison King Air 350 crash

Comment: From comments at the Wikiproject for Aviation discussion about this, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&diff=949612106&oldid=949608568 it's even admitted to that in the past articles such as this are typically kept in AfD. Yet, here comes a flood of delete votes all from users associated with this specific project all chirping the same thing. Just because it was a newsworthy event does not mean it falls under , that's not what that policy is for. And all these delete votes seem a bit gatekeepy and in the face of known previous precedent and consensus. Seems like you all need to work together to try to get consensus on a notability policy surrounding accidents instead of incorrectly using your own essays like above (and as seen in other AfDs). Might save some time in the future so you all don't have to keep ballot stuffing individual AfDs? {{shrug
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The no one famous was on board so it's not notable is weird suggestion, but okay. Received  from national outlets such as CNN and NYT to fully pass .  standard doesn't apply here for a myriad of reasons including: 1) Crashes with 10+ fatalities are exceedingly rare in the US (accidents happening that cause damage to an airport, even more so) meaning this isn't just a non-notable or  news story. 2) Coverage on the subject has been going on for nearly a year now, showing enduring notability and interest beyond the short term news cycle. 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:ROUTINE||WP:PERSISTENCE)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RUNOFTHEMILL)

Comment: We have a longstanding consensus on accidents like this, which is what you are seeing expressed here and which is in line with Wikipedia policies, such as . My comment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&diff=949612106&oldid=949608568 here was an expression of frustration that whenever non-notable aircraft crashes are brought to AfD  they are inevitably opposed by editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and also unfamiliar with aircraft accidents and the lack of enduring changes as a result of most light aircraft and military aircraft accidents. Instead what we see is that consensus and policy gets drowned out by "gosh an airplane crashed, we must have an article in that!" I never hear that about car accidents, truck or bus accidents, motorcycle accidents or even bicycle or boating accidents. This is solely because editors rely on coverage in the general, non-aviation media, which, as I noted, breathlessly reports on aircraft accidents in a way that they do not report on other transportation accidents. This is just due to media sensationalism and nothing else. We are an encyclopedia, we don't need to let non-specialized media reports decide our notably for us and in fact we have a policy on that: PAPER, which explains: "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)