Deletion of 2010 UKIP PZL-104 Wilga crash

Comment: we ought to wait and see the level of coverage that this incident earns. As a developing story, it's a bit premature to render judgment on something that, while apparently trivial, has been widely reported in many sources. At present, I'm leaning merge or keep, but I'd wait 3 or 4 days before entering a definitive vote (to avoid too much |supposition). (Presuming that this AfD discussion continues for the customary period and results in a merge, we'll know better at closure whether to merge to the UKIP article, or to Farage's article. If deleted, I wouldn't oppose re-creation at a later date if the CAA report on this incident earns significant coverage.) Notability of this incident is, in my mind, separate from notability of its victims. Regarding , I don't think there's sufficient acceptance of that essay to base an AfD decision on its arbitrary criteria—it's therefore not a significant factor in my rationale, which instead relies upon the much more robust 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:AIRCRASH||WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:AIRCRASH is an essay so I I really don't give a toss about it. But this fails  as it is highly unlikely to have any lasting significance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: and merge salient details to Nigel Farage, fails }}. &ndash;&ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)