Deletion of HMS Richmond helicopter crash

Comment: Continuing coverage twelve years after the original event and plenty of quality sources which pass .  There are also obvious |alternatives to deletion which are preferred per our |editing policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ATD||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: per all above.  Easily passes  and has a lasting legacy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: In this day and age of instant media, being broadly covered in the news media is not sufficient to confer notability, and even later news hits need to be beyond  follow-up coverage to be |persistent. As Patrol fortu and MilbornOne have quite well explained, this is, in fact, a non-notable military crash; regrettable and tragic, but |Wikipedia is not a memorial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:PERSISTANCE||WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: The topic has considerable coverage in independent reliable sources, therefore it is clearly notable per . So the only question is whether  applies. Since the preface to that policy at EVERYTHING states {{tq|The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive}}, it is obvious we can never eliminate all of the exclusions possible under this policy. In other words,  can only be used to tell us what articles should ''not'' exist, because we cannot exhaust an indefinitely sized list to show that the policy does not apply. What we have to do to counter an argument such as NEWS is to examine whether the topic meets our understanding of 'encyclopedic' content. I believe that this event is encyclopedic, because it has persistent coverage and has sources relating extra aspects of the incident - principally the "first woman", "deepest salvage operation" and "locomotive dedication". Although any of those three factors are not likely to be notable per se, that's not what we're considering: we're examining whether this is more than a single event that received topical news coverage and then disappeared from public notice. From the sources, it is abundantly clear that this is not the case, and it follows that the article as written contains sufficient interest above a mundane accident report for us to consider the topic encyclopedic. I am in no doubt that it should be kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOT||WP:NOTEVERYTHING||WP:NOT||WP:NOTNEWS)