Deletion of 2010 Karachi plane crash

Comment: Like all news stories, on the face of it this passes GNG. However no accident is automatically notable regardless of how many people are killed, and with no evidence of lasting significance this absolutely fails  (& ). It has even been reported like a routine crash. Mention in the Beechcraft 1900 article and a list of crashes in 2010 (if such a thing exists) more than does this incident justice at this time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EVENT)

Comment: yet another misapplication of .  This is not ''Routine News'' by any stretch of Imagination. Its not that aircraft fall out off the sky on a routine basis in Pakistan.  easily passes  and . also agree with Lugnuts and Sjakkale
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: Per , and for the same reason we don't cover all small plane crashes. I don't see anything particularly notable about this one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Truth be told, Mick, were I in your shoes, I wouldn't dare wave the PERNOM flag after having claimed "failing" the provisions of an '''essay''' to be a valid deletion ground.  That being said, let's examine your only other citation, that to .  First comes the Lasting Events clause, which states "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."  Strike one.  The second is Geographical Scope, "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable."  This is an event receiving international front page coverage.  Strike two.  Depth of coverage?  There's plenty of that.  Duration of coverage? "However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable."  This is a crash that occurred two days ago, and it's desperately premature to claim this as a leg upon which to stand.  Diversity of sources?  A slam dunk there too.  The truth is that despite your assertion that this article fails "most parts" of , it doesn't fail '''any''' part of it as of yet
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: Far from routine. An aircrash with 21 fatalities (do these happen on a routine basis - no they don't), no different from Aero Caribbean Flight 883|this which is on the frontpage. As you say, it fails the '''essay''' WP:AIRCRASH, which isn't a policy. This easily meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: MickMacNee, we know you strongly support the deletion of this article. But you are doing nothing to change the opinions of people here by replying to every single one of them with some policy which explains why they are invalid. Not only does it change nothing about whatever the outcome of this discussion is, it is really quite 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINTY)

Comment: clearly notable (many dead, hull-loss of aircraft),  is being misapplied. It's |enyclopedic to have articles on these events - if it takes off, a warning light comes on and it lands again then it's likely not notable. If it takes off and falls out of the sky killing people it pretty likely is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:ENC)

Comment: per Lugnuts and others, since it is proven to meet  by any standard
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: As we know  (a policy) trumps  (a guideline). As such, for this to be kept, it must be clearly demonstrated why this has enduring significance as required by  (a guideline that deals with the specifics of NEWS). So far no keep !voters have shown this to be the case, with many not even giving any kind of reasoning at all other than copy-paste from 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:GNG||WP:EVENT||WP:ATA)