Deletion of 2011 NATO helicopter crash

Comment: While, the grammar and literacy is at major risk for professional editing, and still at its prime, this, of course, is simply a matter  of stating the factual examination, reports, and statistics. Not on the factual opinions of a decision to believe a user's research and information usage is biased and uneffective, of course, instead to edit and assist an error if, plausible. A policy prohibiting an article or category on genocide, war-crimes, or thousand-year conflicts, can be |ignored or reedit the policy in this situation, more or less, in a governmental or Military record
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: at this time this only has http://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%222011+NATO+helicopter+crash%22&num=50#q=%222011+NATO+helicopter+crash%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&ei=ZmA9Tp-JDezYiAKlzZ3EBg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=1&ved=0CBYQ_AUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=81eba942b626e508&biw=999&bih=792 469 google hits, none of them from reliable sources, so  applies over all else. However, it maybe |too soon to tell whether it has any independent notability for being a single event. Furthermore, the event is not a notable battle or engagement, as far as we are aware at this time
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:EFFECT)

Comment: just like any serious documented incidents (such as the Tarnak Farm incident. Easily meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: While I can certainly fling around policy quotations like everyone else, this is simply a matter of common sense. If a policy somewhere prohibits an article on largest single loss of lives in this entire, decade-long war, we need to |ignore or reconsider that policy in this situation. Swarm
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: no indication of any lasting significance of this - 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: but '''Trout''' to the creator. This is premature article. Right now I can quote  (primo news sources, one of which is the BBC) for casualty figures of 31, 37 & 38. We are not a news site, we have no need to create articles on events like this so precipitously, especially when this then compromises article accuracy or reliability. When we actually know anything about the event, with any useful certainty, then it's time to create the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This seems to be approaching |the winter wonderland threshhold
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Enough |general coverage for notability. And a dog! AND A DOG!! Oh the humanity
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)