Deletion of 2019 Gabriola Island crash

Comment: Currently the article has enough sources to confer notability. There is definitely a question of whether such notability will end up ''lasting'', or whether it will be ''temporary''. But, opening an AFD on the article before that answer is clear is premature in my eyes. This article isn't hurting the encyclopedia, nor is it a blight on the site (as it is perfectly sourced as of yet). So, per  I'm for keeping this unless it becomes clear (in the future) that this won't have lasting notability. It was picked up by the New York Times today, and the pilot was the grandson of someone who was indeed "Wikipedia notable". As of yet though, we don't even know who the other casualties are so it's basically impossible at this point to say whether this will or will not have lasting notability (and as we |are not a paper encyclopedia I don't see a need to wait until such notability is fully established to write an article... deletion is pretty easy if it's found necessary later on). &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: per . While it's true that the question of whether this will have lasting significance or not has not been definitively answered as of just two days later, it's putting the cart before the house to say that fact justifies a keep — we need to have landed on the ''affirmative'' side of that question ''before'' an article becomes justified at all. It's not our role to indiscriminately maintain an article about every plane crash that happens at all — we keep articles about ''significant'' plane crashes that have enduring impact, and twin-engine crashes rarely if ever reach the necessary level of importance. The fact that some sources exist is not a -based exemption from having to meet the significance test, either, because initial news reportage of the crash will ''always'' exist for ''every'' plane crash whether it's of enduring significance or not — so to make this notable enough for an encyclopedia, what needs to be shown is not "sources exist", but "the sources are already demonstrating a reason why this is of ''enduring importance''", and these sources are not showing that. Is it sad, yes, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site. We don't even have a standalone article about the twin-engine Cessna crash that killed Jim Prentice, but just write about it ''in'' Prentice's ''biographical'' article — so the fact that the deceased pilot had a notable ''grandfather'' hardly makes this ''more'' notable than that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG)

Comment: and '''Comment''': Notability is not about notable people, it is about having sufficient sources (noted by sources: notable) see ; that there can be found  to cite and support  the article, it is not about the the famousness of the people, nor the content of the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: per , . No enduring notability or lasting effect, this much is clear already barring some outlandish conspiracy. There is no point retaining articles about routine events if there is no realistic chance of them becoming non-routine
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:LASTING)

Comment: as , and this does not meet  ie. "... lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EVENT)

Comment: The article has enough  to demonstrate notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This has been covered in a myriad of reliable sources, including but not limited to ''Reuters'', ''Canadian Press'', ''Times Columnist'', ''The New York Times'', ''Yahoo News'', ''CBC News'', and ''Global News''. Such coverage fully establishes notability per the |notablility guideline, and as per  that notability '''is not temporary'''. Anyone arguing RECENTISM applies here, needs to remember that's not a policy any more than OLDISM... as the broad community has not decided that to be its consensus.  would be a more accurate thing to be pointing to, but even that guideline specifically notes that even while some events are only covered in short news cycles it {{tq|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}}. Therefore, what I said in my original comment about this AFD being premature still fully stands. Lastly, I would like to note that the sources used in this article are specifically quite different than  coverage. A few sources did report things before having full official confirmation, but that is to be expected with any news outlet today (and those unconfirmed facts are not in the article as of yet). &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NTEMP||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:SENSATIONAL)

Comment: Small plane crashes are very common. There are hundreds of them every year. Here are onehttps://www.foxnews.com/us/new-jersey-small-plane-crash-leaves-multiple-homes-on-fire, twohttps://www.foxnews.com/us/2-dead-after-small-plane-crashes-into-suv-in-florida-police, threehttps://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/florida/articles/2019-11-26/pilot-killed-in-florida-small-plane-crash, fourhttps://people.com/human-interest/pilot-dies-planes-crash-florida-air-show/, fivehttps://www.newsweek.com/plane-electrical-equipment-thousands-power-florida-1469147 recent examples. All of which were picked up by a major media outlet. That it has been reported, all routinely, doesn't make it notable. The grandson, have you heard of ? Without someone notable on board, this is just another small plane crash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: Light airplane accidents like this happen by the thousands worldwide each year, and almost all result in no lasting effects beyond the deaths of the people involved - no changes to regulations, no airworthiness directives, fleet groundings, aircraft or procedural changes. There is no indication at this time that this accident is in anyway notable. Just like car accidents, light aircraft accidents are  and run afoul of . Newspapers just jump all over them due to , but they are not encyclopedic content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:RUNOFTHEMILL||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:SENSATIONAL)

Comment: As always with news events that are tragic, unusual or interesting - and especially plane crashes - they generate enough short-term and/or local press coverage to make it appear as if they pass the GNG. This is precisely why  lays down additional requirements such as 'enduring significance' or 'widespread impact...and also re-analyzed afterwards'. 'Routine kinds of news events ... whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable'. Tragic but unremarkable crashes of GA and other small aircraft are exactly the type of event intended to be excluded by this criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENTCRIT)

Comment: A common type of plane crash that fails . Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the local newspaper
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEWSEVENT)