Deletion of 2017 Nature Air Cessna 208 Caravan crash

Comment: WP:AIRCRASH should not be cited here ''Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles''. What I see is this article meets ,  and . Given its high death toll, my best guess is there must be some long lasting effects: negative perception of local tourism, operation suspension of the company, mourns in the communities, new regulations, etc. Did you know... that you can :zh
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:EVENT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: or merge): Just another light aircraft accident, no more notable than a car or bus crash. These happen every day worldwide and are . In this case there is no indication this will result in any lasting effects beyond the deaths of the people involved; no changes to procedures, no Airworthiness Directives, no lasting effects of any other kind and no deaths of any people notable enough to have a biography on Wikipedia. The policy  applies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:RUNOFTHEMILL||WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: as WWGB mentions above this incident was one of the top five deadliest incidents of 2017. Also one of the victims who perished in the crash was related to former Costa Riccan president Laura Chinchilla. The  argument is not appropriate now as with the incident only being hours old it is natural that most of the coverage will be news related. There is plenty of coverage that has not yet been included in the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Airline crashes with 12 deaths most certainly do not "happen every day worldwide". This was the fourth-deadliest air crash of 2017. Too soon to determine lasting effects on the industry. 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID)

Comment: Continuing the discussion above. I know , but the essay  says "Don't cite me" itself. If you accept its argument, don't cite it. If you do't accept its argument, don't cite it. It's not helpful to cite  and  here either. If I were voting, I would vote for Keep and just say my common sense is this article is notable. Though I do feel so. Did you know... that you can :zh
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ONLYESSAY||WP:AIRCRASH||WP:CONSENSUS||WP:COMMONSENSE)

Comment: We don't have a guideline qualifying the ''fourth'' deadliest crash in a given year; the fact a relatively small number died makes this stat a bit misleading. What we have here is a failed attempt to make a |news story an encyclopedic entry without any knowledge of |in-depth analysis, |persistence, or |lasting significance. Editors will, inevitably, fall back to their master key: ; however, RAPID works ''both ways'' and drawing it in a discussion does not put an automatic postponement on notability. Supposedly this may become notable in the future; '''that is when you create the article, not before
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:INDEPTH||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:LASTING||WP:RAPID)

Comment: Per  and . Light aircraft accidents are not inherently notable. Wikipedia ''does not'' exist to create articles now and wait to see if notability exists later, that flips the notability standard on its head. The page barely exists anyway, so there's little harm from deletion; if it turns out notability is , page could easily be re-created later once notability is established. Deletion is important to avoid setting a bad precedent for future non-notable incidents
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RUNOFTHEMILL||WP:LASTING)