The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
Does not meet WP:NEVENTS and WP:GNG due to the lack of sources and coverage for this crash. Most sources which do talk about the crash mention it in passing (from what I can see always only it happened, but nothing else). Also not much happened because of the event (from what I can see from the draft), except of course from the usual investigation. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions10:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep I was able to find [1] quickly but can't find much more apart from the usual directories. That's WP:SIGCOV though, it's from 2000, commercial flights with casualties are generally notable, I'm sure there was local coverage, and this is a brand new article. At worst I think draftify. SportingFlyerT·C10:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but potential draft There's not quite enough information to really keep it as a noteworthy air crash, it is literally only a paragraph of information, which is why I said "Potential Draft", if some information does eventually get resurrected, then there could potentially be enough to keep the page running. But at this stage, I'd leave it to the Nominator or whomever as to what he'd do with it, as, in all honesty, this article is a first for me, as I've never seen one quite like it. Cheesy McGee (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources available, I have added a few to the article. Few, if any, of the news reports I've dug up in the 30 minutes I've tried have mentioned the crash by the flight number, so don't try searching by that, but there is coverage out there. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamy Jazz: I wouldn't worry too much - you were taking action in a move war, and sometimes WP:BEFORE searches don't bring much up, especially when it's a 20-year-old plane crash in rural Laos that's not referred to by its flight number. SportingFlyerT·C21:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets some criteria for an aircraft accident article, but unfortunately (for the articles sake) no notable persons were on board and the aircrafts MTOW is less than 12,000 Lbs, which is a factor in notability. - Samf4u (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AIRCRASH is an essay (well regarded), not policy. And this is very much an edge-case for AIRCRASH's 12,500 MTOW threshold (Harbin Y-12 being 11,684 pounds) - I'd say however that carrying 15 passengers would be more significant than 816 pounds vs. an arbitrary threshold). I suspect this is notable - however I'm holding off !voting since I want to see better WP:SUSTAINED coverage (and not just reporting from around the event). Icewhiz (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Having articles for accidents during scheduled passenger service resulting in multiple fatalities and hull loss is the norm, within the WP Aviation project. The aircraft's maximum takeoff weight is immaterial: who says there's a 12,000 lbs threshold for inclusion? Coverage on international media has now been established, after the recent edits. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2019 (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.
