Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Shortcut

WP:DELAV

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Aviation. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Aviation|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Aviation. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Aviation Articles for Deletion (WP:AFD)

1944 South African Air Force C-47 crash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a wartime crash of a C-47 in Oman during World War 2. No significant, lasting coverage of the incident that would fulfill the requirements at WP:NEVENT. nf utvol (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, South Africa, Oman, and United Kingdom. nf utvol (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This crash Involved 32 fatalities during World War II transport mission and occurred in a modern-day in Oman. It is the deadliest C-47 military crashes in Middle East region and has been recorded by multiple aviation archives such as [Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives](https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-douglas-c-47a-dakota-iii-near-salalah-32-killed) and others. These independent sources provide verifiable documentation, fulfilling the criteria at WP:NOT and WP:NAV. While coverage is limited due to the wartime context, the scale and historical relevance meet the threshold for inclusion. Yousuf31 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do WP:NOT and WP:NAV have to do with this? The requirement for events such as this are covered under WP:NEVENT. It must have lasting, historical significance or effects. In this case, that would include significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources published after the fact, not merely 'fact of' mentions in databases. It is unclear as to whether or not the database you've referenced actually meets the requirements even for WP:RS. The BAAA About page makes it appear as though it is a self-published enthusiast database with an official-sounding name that does not actually have any official backing or established editorial standards. It is probably good for referencing otherwise-notable events, but simply having an event listed in this database shouldn't be used to establish notability. nf utvol (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the sources come from the same publisher. Not enough sources to claim verifiability. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 15:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is a textbook example both of a failure of WP:NEVENT and of the reasons we shouldn't gather up entries from exhaustive databases. Unsurprisingly, accidents happen during wartime, often quite bad accidents. And almost all of them get recorded somewhere, at least if we're talking modern western countries, because they keep meticulous records. But what then? Other than the official records (which seem to be the only source here) did anyone have anything to say about this weeks or months or years later? Not by the testimony we have here. It was a bad accident, to be sure, but it was also one of many, many such losses during the war, only some of which attracted any lasting attention. And even if we accept these databases as reliable, they are deliberately indiscriminate, so that scraping them for article subjects is a sure way of including non-notable topics. It may have been one of the worst aviation accidents in what is now Oman, but we don't you saying that; we need RSs writing about the accident because it was so bad. And this, we do not have. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Sharqiya Aviation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a small helicopter charter service in Oman. Only sourcing that includes any in-depth coverage is a single profile in Heliops Magazine, almost all other mentions of the company are either in databases, self-published corporate sites, or social media platforms. nf utvol (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, and Oman. nf utvol (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Al Sharqiya Aviation is notable for its unique role in Oman's helicopter charter market. The Heliops Magazine profile is a significant independent source that provides detailed coverage of the company. Additional reliable sources are being sought to further improve the article. Yousuf31 (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of airlines of Oman This article clearly fails WP:NCORP, and it could be easily redirected to a section of the article of above. Protoeus (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Njovana

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Article sources:

[1] - YouTube video
[2] - user-generated, contains a link which gives her a mention + brief quote
[3] - paywalled, but appears to be primarily about a different pilot
[4] - X post (link is broken for me)
[5] - Facebook post announcing the death of a different pilot
[6] - does not mention subject

In my WP:BEFORE I also located ~2 sentences a name-drop mention and a self-published blog entry There appears to be a lack of reliable sources that can verify the claims here, especially given this is (probably?) a BLP. Zzz plant (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Aviation, and Zimbabwe. Zzz plant (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is a obvious case of a person who is notable for only one event (and an event that isn’t very notable to begin with), that simply would never have enough notability for a standalone article. Protoeus (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, something that could been fixed, but man, this article is written in a tone in which it doesn’t appear as a Wikipedia article. Protoeus (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The accomplishments are commendable, but the lack of reliable sourcing makes it hard to say much that is verifiable about her. Also edit: forgot to clarify in nom, but the 2 sentences I linked above (i.e. the most coverage I could locate) - is an opinion piece by a correspondent. Not sure how much editorial oversight or fact-checking there would be. Zzz plant (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did a search for additional sourcing, but turned up nothing of note. Definitely does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, and not anything that's good enough for a WP:BLP. nf utvol (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet WP:NBIO. Conceivably could be merged/redirected to a section of the Air Zimbabwe article if we had a reliable source for the "broader effort by Air Zimbabwe [...] to diversify the airline's flight crews" claim, but there doesn't appear to be anything better than an obit written by another pilot [1]. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Camp Ripley mid-air collision

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This accident whilst potentially notable has very little for an article of its own. A quick Google search lists a few potentially usable sources, however it still isn't much. This one for example looks to be passable (I am unfamiliar with the site in general however). I think the most appropriate course of action for this article would be a redirect to a relevant section of the main Camp Ripley article. 11WB (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Minnesota. 11WB (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article I linked above (and the one I linked by mistake before that, which I switched) contain nothing more than passing mentions. I think this strengthens the arguments for a redirect. 11WB (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Camp Ripley: Accident without enduring coverage. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Military aircraft accidents are, sadly, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Note there is nothing at the proposed redirect target on this subject - and frankly that is appropriate, as this is an entirely non-notable occurance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this even though the fatalities are unfortunate. I opted for redirection over deletion for any articles that have any outstanding links to this one (I don't know a quick way to check this, though I'm sure there probably is a way). Deletion is as appropriate as redirection for this article I think. 11WB (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Camp Ripley. The target article will need a section on incidents/accidents. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine accident, not notable enough for even the existing 9-word mention at Camp Ripley § History of Camp Ripley to be DUE. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. A redirect/merge is undue WP:RECENTISM as this is surely not the only accident which occurred there. Mangoe (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The result was merge‎ to 2025 Dhaka fighter jet crash (which is already the target of 2025 Bangladesh Air Force Chengdu J-7 crash). Discarding !votes not anchored in P&G, I see a clear consensus to merge the page. Owen× ☎ 15:01, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maherin Chowdhury

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E: no indication of notability except for her role in the 2025 Bangladesh Air Force Chengdu J-7 crash, no reliable sources antedating the crash. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Aviation, and Bangladesh. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 Dhaka fighter jet crash Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 11:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable for two reasons:

Widely reported in both local & foreign media.
[Non-political] member of Majumder–Zia family, which is a widely discussed topic in Bangladesh.

Ahammed Saad (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and being widely reported is not sufficient.
The notability of a family is not automatically inherited by its members. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)"

— WP:INVALIDBIO

So, according to WP:INVALIDBIO:

Significant coverage is sufficient for this article
This rule only applies for close relationships, like the spouse or the children

Therefore, I support keeping the article. Ahammed Saad (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosbif73 I would like to have a reply from you before the AfD concludes. Ahammed Saad (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVALIDBIO merely tells us that the notability of her family has no bearing in this case, so we have to assess her notability on its own merits, applying the rules set out in WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. While there was plenty of news coverage about her in the immediate aftermath of the crash, all the coverage stems from that single event, so we must consider WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E (BLP criteria also apply to recently deceased people). I agree with those who suggest a merge into the crash article as an alternative to deletion; another option would be to draftify and reconsider in a few months time, if she receives a major national honour or lasting in-depth coverage. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I support for draftifying the article and redirect Maherin Chowdhury to 2025 Dhaka fighter jet crash. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with parent article. In terms of her popularity currently in Bangladesh, I am sure she will get the Independence Day Award or Ekushey Padak soon or later, then this could exist as independent article. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 13:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: perfect case of WP:TOOSOON, if she had gotten any awards i would understand having a article, but for now as a stand-alone article fails WP:GNG. Protoeus (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Well, imo, the thing about Maherin Chowdhury isn't all about the plane crash. She was celebrated not for her tragic death, rather for her own merit. — Meghmollar2017 (U T C) — 22:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: coverage so far is tied directly to one tragic event. But if strong coverage like national awards or documentaries comes, then the article definitely can be standalone. WinKyaw (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep, her legacy will inspire us.AbuSayeed (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2025 (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.

Veronte Autopilot

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article, lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Engineering, Aviation, Spaceflight, and Spain. Zuck28 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article might be eligible for CSD G5.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is not eligible for G5, as CU found the article creator unrelated to the putitive sockmaster (albiet socking/involved in meatpuppetry themselves) and, even if it had been confirmed, the putitive sockmaster was not blocked at the time this article was created and thus it was not created in evasion of a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why was this AFD not closed as a soft delete? From what I seen on the page’s history, there has been no denied PROD, so I don’t see why this was relisted. Protoeus (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation articles proposed for deletion WP:PROD

None