We'd need a crystal ball to justify notability today. If any lasting effects or other grounds for notability come to light in the future, the article can always be recreated. In other words, usual caveats apply. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least Draftify. How can you claim no lasting impact when the investigation hasn't been completed? Surely it's too soon to claim that. Plenty of WP:GNG coverage to date. Another article appeared today about maintenance issues. The-Pope (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
draftify as twenty days is just not long enough to determine whether this accident is going to satisfy our notability standards. Mangoe (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It has some sources that could sustain the coverage so I don’t think this will be deleted, but I neither think it’s having an article like it is right now. Protoeus (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)`[reply]
The reports are said to be out in March – and that will no doubt get at least passing mentions in local news – but unless you have a crystal ball there's no way of knowing if there will be any significant or in-depth coverage, or if the conclusions of the investigation will lead to any lasting effects. If they do, the article can always be recreated. In the meantime, notability criteria are not met, so we should delete (or draftify). Rosbif73 (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keepbut Draftify I think this should be drafted, and kefp, but have some more info added, as the investigations go across. This does not deserve to be deleted due to "low coverage" A plane accident is a plane accident, no matter how big or small. It is supposed to be in the news. Shaneapickle (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A plane accident is a plane accident, no matter how big or small – Indeed, but that doesn't necessarily make it notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. To quote the event notability criteria, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, [...]) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable".
Delete unless someone can produce significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. Otherwise this is a WP:News article. Several keep !votes have even admitted in their statements that they don't have the necessary sources to establish notability and that it's too soon to have the article. Not opposed to draftification if people are totally convinced that journals are going to be doing write ups about this in the near future. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sustained media coverage, little indication there will be any in the future. !Votes not consistent with our PAGs should be disregarded outright. JoelleJay (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm a bit torn with this one. General aviation crashes generally aren't notable, and I'm not sure why this one would be when others aren't just based on how routine it was, but it's made national news for more than one cycle, the Prime Minister and state premier noticed, and it was carrying tourists so the story got picked up internationally. I've decided on weak delete as it feels more common sense based on what we typically include here, but additional coverage would swing me. SportingFlyerT·C07:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]