2024 SkyJet Elite Astra crash: No reason to expect WP:LASTING effects or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE .  Rosbif73 ( talk ) 08:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions .  Rosbif73 ( talk ) 08:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Florida ,  and Virginia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Lean keep 5 fatalities did occur in this accident and as of right now, sources still seem to extend coverage: [22] , [23] , [24] , so this already does satisfy 2 of the three criteria in the WP:AIRCRASH essay, albeit its too early to call whether this incident is notable or not, given that we do not exactly know the circumstances of the emergency.  GalacticOrbits 19:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I still hold my stance of keeping this article.  I found the adsbexchange track to it, accessible here: [25] .  Also, one of the passengers, Alfredo Diez, seems to be the CEO of Atlantis Flight Academy, a private jet charter and flying school company: [26] , [27] , [28] .  Furthermore, this seems to be the first hull-loss & fatal hull-loss of the aircraft type since its operation in 1984: [29] GalacticOrbits ( talk ) 05:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] " Furthermore, this seems to be the first hull-loss & fatal hull-loss of the aircraft type since its operation in 1984 " The accident involving the first hull-loss of a G650 doesn't have its own article so that argument seems pretty bland combined with the fact that a lot of aircraft don't have a separate article for their first fatal accident.  The rest of the guidelines mentioned are more than enough to warrant a delete of this article.  Other than WP:AIRCRASH which is an essay, you haven't provided solid evidence to prove why this article should be kept.  Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 12:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Although it is the only criterion available, WP:AIRCRASH is at the end of the day an essay.  Do not use WP:AIRCRASH as a criteria unless you can find other guidelines that prove that this article should stay.  If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may also be notable enough for a stand-alone article , if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports.  Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 14:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A few articles two weeks after the event, simply naming the victims and repeating the details of the crash, do not constitute WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE .  Rosbif73 ( talk ) 18:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This definitely should NOT be deleted, 5 deaths occuring and has made its way around aviation news.  TyHaliburtn 14:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay so should we create an article for every single accident that has more or less five deaths?  All the guidelines that users SunDawn , Rosbif73 and I have stated overrule WP:AIRCRASH which is an essay.  This article fails all the guidelines stated.  Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 16:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So with ur stupid logic 2024 Jetways Airlines Fokker 50 crash should also be deleted??? 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:3DF3:2638:4B06:2550 ( talk ) 16:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please do not make personal attacks against other editors.  —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts!  16:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] then tell wikipedia to fix its guidelines 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:3DF3:2638:4B06:2550 ( talk ) 16:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Two things:  1) Do not call anyone's logic "stupid" - that is uncivil.  2) The word is spelt "your" - you are not texting to a friend.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 22:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] M̶i̶l̶d̶ Delete / support Fails WP:GNG , WP:SUSTAINED and I have doubts on whether this accident can meet WP:LASTING .  Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 14:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This article didn't satisfy WP:SUSTAINED and WP:GNG .  Light aircraft incidents are generally not notable, and this article is not notable enough.  Some news articles are expected, but it didn't satisfy WP:GNG as the coverage is too routine, not in-depth, and didn't have any lasting precedence.  If this incident changed how Gulfstream G100 are flown globally this article might be notable, but it seems that it's not the case.  However, this incident can be added in its respective accident aircraft article.  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess the Japan airlines collision with that small plane isn't notable too??? It only had 5 deaths 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:3DF3:2638:4B06:2550 ( talk ) 16:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] look at 2024 Jetways Airlines Fokker 50 crash 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:3DF3:2638:4B06:2550 ( talk ) 16:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you even read any sort of guideline whatsoever?  Both of these accidents involved commercial airliners, one widely accepted start criterion and both events ended with all aircraft involved being written off.  The Astra Jet is a business jet.  And did you even read user SunDawn's argument?  This accident fails all mentioned guidelines against the article.  Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 16:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WHY DOES Hop-A-Jet Flight 823 HAVE AN ARTICLE THEN¿¿¿¿¿ ITS A PRIVATE JET AND LESS THAN 5 PEOPLE DIED, WHAT IS U TRYNA SAY BRO 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:3DF3:2638:4B06:2550 ( talk ) 16:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please act and respond in a civilised manner and see my reply below.  Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 17:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ SunDawn : , For clarification, "Light aircraft incidents are generally not notable".  The IAI 1125 Astra is by no means a "light aircraft".  Light aircraft are by definition, those who have an MTOW of 12,500 lbs or less (see Light aircraft ), while the Astra has an MTOW of nearly 25,000 lbs.  FYI, MTOW means maximum takeoff weight.  GalacticOrbits ( talk ) 05:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is beyond stupid, Who the hell cares what the criteria says, 5 people died and made worldwide news, stop being silly.  2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:3DF3:2638:4B06:2550 16:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I suggest you go reading though all of the guidelines mentioned in this page like this the next time you join a debate, you can make a logically and pieced together argument.  Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 16:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] then why does Hop-A-Jet Flight 823 have its own article??? its a private jet?? ???? ???? ?¿¿¿¿¿¿ 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:3DF3:2638:4B06:2550 ( talk ) 16:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that the pilots reported a dual engine failure might suggest lasting effects as it could change procedures.  It was also a chartered flight.  The accident also had multiple secondary sources covering the accident.  That doesn't mean that there won't be a discussion on whether the article should stay or not.  It's just that for now, certain guidelines have been met although that could change.  And remember, if in the end, the accident does result in huge changes, there is always the possibility of reversing the delete, it's just that for the moment, nothing notable has been shown.  Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 17:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] i can find atleast 1 million sources on google 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:3DF3:2638:4B06:2550 ( talk ) 17:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you post the link of your page then?  Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 17:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The number of deaths isn't directly a factor in deciding whether the article meets the notability criteria.  Even one death is tragic for the families, of course.  Fatal accidents are generally newsworthy, but being newsworthy is not the same as being encyclopedic .  There are hundreds of light aircraft and general aviation accidents with fatalities every year, and very few of them have any encyclopedic value.  Rosbif73 ( talk ) 18:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] At risk of feeding the trolls "Who the hell cares what the criteria says" is probably the most laughable argument I've seen at AfD in a while.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  People dying in accidents is not uncommon, and it does not inherently warrant an article.  This article should only be created if widespread ramifications or analysis come afterward.  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 19:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS .  Small plane crashes are literally daily occurrences worldwide.  Continued coverage is limited and only routine local news regarding the identity of the victims.  Per WP:EVENTCRIT : "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."  AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This accident isn't too notable, despite all the news reports when searching for the accident on Google.  This story was mainly reported from 3/10 to 3/12, then on the 20th did the news return back to the story onto identifying the victims and not to sound too ignorant but they were stories you took some glance at, and just forgot about.  But for the families of the victims, a story to remember.  70.167.194.163 ( talk ) 17:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete