Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Aviation Articles for Deletion (WP:AFD)

[edit]

2009 Indonesian Air Force Fokker F27 crash

[edit]
2009 Indonesian Air Force Fokker F27 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:GNG. Compounded by a lack of sources Fadedreality556 (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014 Rif Dimashq airstrikes

[edit]
December 2014 Rif Dimashq airstrikes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. News coverage of the event is WP:PRIMARY and there is no WP:LASTING or WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Not every one of the hundreds of reported airstrikes is independently notable per WP:GNG. Redirect to Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war, where it's already covered with context. See WP:Articles for deletion/2021 Tapuah Junction shooting for a similar AfD. Longhornsg (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can easily be incorporated in an article covering the larger context, agree with nominator. BHC (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angara Airlines Flight RA-46620

[edit]
Angara Airlines Flight RA-46620 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely no notability here at all, this user just seems to be creating articles about anything and has already been warned by others to draftify or submit the article for review but never listened. I don't need to put any links here as its quite clear that this is just an ordinary plane incident that has no business for a wikipedia article. Megabyte21 (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really anything special. And I don't think the press cared about that incident. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Rio Branco Cessna Grand Caravan crash

[edit]
2023 Rio Branco Cessna Grand Caravan crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a lasting article, last news coverage on this accident was well over a year ago WP:NOTNEWS. There were similar accidents like this that were nominated for deletion then deleted. Megabyte21 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rio Branco International Airport § Accidents and incidents: And this plane crash also lacks WP:LASTING effects. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 San Diego Cessna Citation II crash

[edit]
2025 San Diego Cessna Citation II crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS: This aviation incident is not notable enough to warrant a dedicated Wikipedia article given it's news coverage. The frequency of accidents alike or similar are often occurrences and are not particularly notable therefore I nominate it for WP:AFD and further discussion. user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 06:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articles for both Daniel Williams (musician) and Dave Shapiro (music agent) were not created until they unfortunately died in this specific aviation accident. With that being said, I still do not believe this aviation accident is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article given the circumstances let alone them having their own Wikipedia articles. user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 09:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the largest tragedy to the music community in decades and incredibly noteworthy. 2600:1010:A120:432F:8596:894D:C19C:E6F6 (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing beats this or this Kailash29792 (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the articles should have been created before the accident. Even if they were created after the accident they were still made. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: light aircraft crashes, including into populated areas, are relatively common. WP:EVENTCRIT #4 tells us Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, [...]) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Nothing here gives such enduring significance, and as pointed out above the musician and the agent killed did not have articles before the crash occurred and would probably not pass WP:NMUSIC. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What then makes Med Jets Flight 056 any more or less significant than this? Xanblu (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wikipedia articles like this serve multiple valuable purposes and provides evolving information that are not comparable to or replaceable by individual newspaper articles. This and similar Wikipedia articles will likely be updated as investigations proceed, and the evolution of this article itself will capture details that will otherwise be lost or else difficult to find without great effort. General aviation fatality rates are 40-50x commercial aviation rates; and the lack of flight recorders on flights like this greatly complicate investigations, cost to the public and financial recovery for those injured or killed on the ground -- i.e., victims subsidize plane owners, piolots and manufacturers. Finally the details collected here will help fuel the spee, precision and robustness of harvested by AI systems. 2604:6000:9FC0:17:34F1:B682:C8AA:C987 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strike duplicate !vote from identical IP. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: normally I would say delete but there were two celebrity musicians that have their own articles and other music people on board. We kept/made articles for the exact reason a famous person on board died. Also, the least important reason but still something important, is that six people on board were killed and multiple others are the ground were injured. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above “ The articles for both Daniel Williams (musician) and Dave Shapiro (music agent) were not created until they unfortunately died in this specific aviation accident.”
These musicians would likely not pass Wikipedia:NMUSIC either. user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 19:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also just stated something above. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: This is a common general-aviation accident that fails multiple notability criteria:
- WP:EVENT #4 & WP:NOTNEWS: Small-jet crashes with single digit fatalities occur frequently. Absent lasting regulatory, technological, or cultural impact are not presumed notable. Nothing here indicates enduring significance beyond an initial news cycle.
- WP:GNG: Coverage is limited to short lives spot reports and local outlets. There is no sustained, in-depth analysis, investigation series, or treatment that would demonstrate long-term encyclopedic value.
- Victim notability: As previously mentioned, the two biographies cited Daniel Williams (musician) and Dave Shapiro (music agent) were created because of this crash and likely do not meet the critera for WP:NMUSIC nor WP:NBIO on their own. They cannot bootstrap notability for this incident per Wikipedia:ONEEVENT and likely should have their articles contested for WP:AFD too.
- Consistency: Comparable general aviation crashes with similar casualty counts have been merged into location or aviation related articles when they produced no winder consequences. Maintaining this incident as a standalone article would set an inconsistent precedent that is developing already.
The details of this article should be briefly summarized in the Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport article. Standalone article offers no additional encyclopedic benefit. user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 22:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC) Striking second vote by the nominator. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This accident is at least as notable and destructive as the one which occurred in Philadelphia earlier this year regardless of the higher number of casualties in that accident, if not moreso due to the people who were on board the plane. It wasn't exactly a single-engine C-172 coming down onto a car, in which case I'd agree it isn't notable enough, but rather a mass casualty accident with a fairly large business jet in a densely populated part of San Diego, carrying people with at least some semblance of importance. I mean, the plane that crashed here was larger than the one which came down in Philadelphia and did more physical damage to its surrounding area, which will have a lasting effect on the area. We don't know all the details yet but it's also fairly likely a higher number of people were injured in this accident.
I feel that we can mostly take or leave reasoning about how famous the people on board were and their notability or lack thereof justifying keeping or deleting the article, I don't personally know enough about them to know the significance of the passengers. My justification mostly lies on the fact that we have plenty of similarly destructive general aviation crashes that have articles, and this is extremely similar to one that happened very recently which has its own article. If the Philadelphia crash can get its own article, then for consistency's sake this one absolutely can as well. Xanblu (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify, when I say 'higher number injured' I'm referring to the current number we have on this accident, not in comparison to the Philadelphia crash. My apologies. Xanblu (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To expand upon what I originally stated in my opening description for this AFD and to further encourage discussion here are my discussion points:
This is a common general-aviation accident that fails multiple notability criteria:
- WP:EVENT #4 & WP:NOTNEWS: Small-jet crashes with single digit fatalities occur frequently. Absent lasting regulatory, technological, or cultural impact are not presumed notable. Nothing here indicates enduring significance beyond an initial news cycle.
- WP:GNG: Coverage is limited to short lives spot reports and local outlets. There is no sustained, in-depth analysis, investigation series, or treatment that would demonstrate long-term encyclopedic value.
- Victim notability: As previously mentioned, the two biographies cited Daniel Williams (musician) and Dave Shapiro (music agent) were created because of this crash and likely do not meet the critera for WP:NMUSIC nor WP:NBIO on their own. They cannot bootstrap notability for this incident per Wikipedia:ONEEVENT and likely should have their articles contested for WP:AFD too.
- Consistency: Comparable general aviation crashes with similar casualty counts have been merged into location or aviation related articles when they produced no winder consequences. Maintaining this incident as a standalone article would set an inconsistent precedent that is developing already.
The details of this article should be briefly summarized in the Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport article. Standalone article offers no additional encyclopedic benefit.
user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 02:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Coverage extends beyond local and it is significant because it includes multiple victims who are notable (does not matter if their articles were created as a result of this incident). There's an extensive investigation toward the cause of the crash, which multiple factors are still being published. Filmforme (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS – All the coverage regarding the accident is simply primary news reporting with no secondary in-depth coverage of the event existing. This article is just a collection of primary news coverage reporting on the crash. It doesn't matter whether or not the crash, though tragic, damaged houses, killed people, was similar to Med Jets Flight 056, had people of interest on board, was destructive, crashed in a residential area; it doesn't matter whether or not this article will be "harvested by AI systems." Investigations into aviation accidents are routine and simply having an investigation is not a sign of notability. None of these arguments are based in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 says that routine kinds of news events including accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. At the end of the day, this is just a routine crash of a business jet. If anybody wants to keep the information, I wouldn't oppose merging some content relating to the crash to the airport article or to the biographies. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aviationwikiflight I wholeheartedly agree; you explained the situation perfectly. Given the coverage of this incident, quite a few people here are new WP:WIkipedians, which is fantastic; however, they may not yet be familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on article notability.
    As you similarly noted, none of the arguments I've read so far in support of keeping the article have cited specific reasons based on Wikipedia's policies for meeting article criteria.
    While I love Wikipedia and aviation, it's essential we uphold Wikipedia:CONPOL to preserve Wikipedia’s integrity as an encyclopedia focused on lasting knowledge, rather than a platform for transient news. user@wikipedia:~$MSWDEV(talk) 06:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i would love to hear your explanation to
    2023 Elmina Beechcraft 390 crash
    2023 Virginia Cessna Citation crash
    2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash
    92.118.205.211 (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Short version: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Long version (without looking closely at the articles in question): either they should be deleted for the same reasons that this article should, or they should be kept for a reason that doesn't apply here. But their existence has no bearing on the decision whether to delete this article. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your stance is wrong for the 2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash, it has an episode on Mayday called "Lost Star Footballer" (S24E09), all other crashes in that program have an articles for them. XenithXenaku (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way are they wrong regarding 2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash? Rosbif73 just said [...] they should [either] be deleted for the same reasons that this article should, or they should be kept for a reason that doesn't apply here. But their existence has no bearing on the decision whether to delete this article. They didn't assume notability or non-notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This: (without looking closely at the articles in question).
    They didn't even bother reading them to see if they ARE noteworthy to keep!
    Also, did you even read the comment about that Mayday episode in regards to that crash? XenithXenaku (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They literally just said that the comment they were responding to was in short an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment. And besides, it doesn’t really matter whether these topics are notable or not in regards to this discussion as it’s off-topic. We’re discussing the notability of this event, not the others. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    yes because 6 deaths with 2 possibly notable people and 8+ injuries with 10+ destroyed houses in the 2nd most populated city in california is not notable, good job. 92.118.205.211 (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll read the articles in question and form an opinion on their notability if and when someone nominates them for deletion. Until then, their notability has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    and the 2 musicians on board Daniel Williams (musician), Dave Shapiro (music agent) have an article now even if they were created after the crash, nonetheless one was apart of a band group that did have an article The Devil Wears Prada (band) 92.118.205.211 (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't make him any more notable. WP:BANDMEMBER (part of the notability guidelines for musicians) specifically tells us that Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. Williams was a member of a notable band but not, as far as I can tell quickly, a notable individual. Equally, his death in this crash doesn't affect his notability. I suspect that in the medium term his article will end up being merged into the band's article. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Happened in a major city under unusual circumstances. If Lynyrd Skynyrd wasn't popular at the time of their crash, the chances of their crash being made into an article would be slim. Same goes for other instances, like Payne Stewart's incident, which likely was made not only due to the strange nature of the incident, but who he was as a celebrity. This event will have lasting ramifications on the metalcore community and music community as a whole. My vote is this article stays. 4rft5 (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We judge articles on their own merits based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines so the existence of other articles has no bearing on whether or not this event is notable. We don't know whether or not "This event will have lasting ramifications on the metalcore community and music community as a whole." That's highly speculatory and there's currently no evidence to support such an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It passes every portion of WP:GNG except for the "Sources" bullet, which requires secondary sources. Since this only occurred a few days ago, it's unreasonable to expect that secondary sources would exist yet. Given its national coverage, its impact on the San Diego area and military community of San Diego, and many other factors already explained, secondary sources will eventually document this accident. This accident highlights the congested airspace of a major city. Future works on this topic (and others, such as general aviation safety, the history of San Diego, and San Diego's aviation history specifically) will likely cover this accident. I realize that Wikipedia itself is not a crystal ball, but for a recent event we are predicting the future of its notability when we argue to keep an article and when we argue to delete an article. I also agree with the many reasons already provided (major city, extensive destruction on the ground, larger general aviation aircraft, multiple interesting aviation, human, and weather circumstances involved [I grant that this applies to many aviation disasters, but it also does not apply to many aviation disasters which, correctly, do not have Wikipedia articles]). Holy (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's unreasonable for secondary sources to exist so soon, which is a requirement per WP:WHYN, then such a topic does not deserve to have a standalone article until the aforementioned requirement is fulfilled. For example, 2015 Services Air Airbus A310 crash was kept in the first AfD with one of the reasons being that a "major/large plane crashing killing people on the ground with major effects on the area and on airlines in the area meeting GNG" is notable. Eight years later, there was no evidence that notability was met at all. Another example is the 2019 New York City helicopter crash: It was previously kept at the first AfD for practically the same reasons as those argued over here, and five years later, it was deleted because those arguments didn't hold water. Now obviously, that doesn't mean that this will be/is the case for every recent crash (e.g. Delta Connection Flight 4819) but it's a reminder that what might appear to be currently notable doesn't necessarily mean it will be in the future. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    so why not just keep the article for a good amount of time instead of voting to delete it not even 5 days after the crash. make some sense. 92.118.205.211 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe why not wait for the news coverage to cool down before deciding whether or not the event is notable enough for a standalone article? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    exactly, i'm not sure what some are thinking but to delete an article within 5 days of the crash is nonsense. atleast give it some time atleast 1 month for all the ongoing reports and preliminary report 92.118.205.211 (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true that oftentimes reliable sources come out over time, but that's not an argument for keeping this article in its current form. If it doesn't meet notability at this moment but it may in the future, the better option is to draftify the article so it can be worked on as sources come out, then go through the normal WP:AfC process which is explicitly meant to avoid getting into the mess we are currently in. guninvalid (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: After reading all the arguments provided, I vote to keep the article because the circumstances surrounding this particular incident is different than the typical general aviation accident. In addition to what was mentioned, preliminary information available show that there were other factors involved such as issues with the airport itself that may had contributed to the accident. Although general aviation accidents are common, it’s rare for one that have so many contributing factors. By having an article on this incident can provide useful lessons or case study. 136.26.15.132 (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usual caveats apply to all deletions. If this particular accident ends up being used as a case study, for example, then reliable secondary sources will appear and the article can be recreated. But as things stand today, there's no sign of notability. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's off-topic. It does not matter whether or not other articles exist or not. We judge the notability of events individually on their own merits. Feel free to nominate the article for deletion but I'm not going to discuss it here. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've repeatedly avoided providing or have provided cop-out answers as to what is and isn't notable about comparable accidents. I don't even understand anymore what constitutes "notable" in this context based on how often you've simply declined to describe it. If it isn't casualties, if it isn't property damage, if it isn't important passengers, then what is it? What in hells bells makes a general aviation accident worthy of an article? It's not far-fetched or unfair to ask for a comparison to articles that exist if somebody might not have a straightforward answer. If there's no consistency, what is the point of any of this? Is that not a tenet of Wikipedia, or am I incorrect? Clearly a precedent has been set for articles of this type of aviation accident; for the love of god, adhere to them. Xanblu (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not going to answer that question because it’s not the topic of this discussion. If you want my opinion on whether or not the other events mentioned are notable, ask me somewhere else or at the deletion nominations of these pages, but I’m not going to respond to them over here. For the time being, in this case, we have to judge the notability of this crash based on the coverage it has received (see WP:GNG, WP:N(E) and WP:WHYN). As I’ve already said above, the coverage needed to establish notability (mainly secondary sources) is nonexistent. However, we don’t determine notability based on the existence of other articles. We judge the notability of an event based on its own merits, not by simply saying that because that crash has an article, so must this one. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any notability criteria specific to general aviation accidents. In addition to WP:GNG, the most relevant guideline is usually WP:EVENT, and specifically WP:EVENTCRIT #4 which tells us that routine accidents are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. That "something further" might be lasting effects such as major changes recommended by the accident investigation, it might be that the event is cited in case studies, and so on. But as has been pointed out repeatedly here, it is not the existence of other articles about comparable events. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Xanblu, it's whether reliable sources have analyzed it. WP:GNG explains the requirements. Note that it requires secondary sources, which excludes simple media coverage. All the things you listed are just whether something feels important based on different statistics, which isn't relevant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Xanblu Please, for your own sake, read Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Just skim the lede, I beg of you. guninvalid (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Daniel Williams (musician) and/or Dave Shapiro (music agent). I do agree with some of the deletion arguments that this seems to be a general aviation accident, and while the passengers were special, the event itself was not. Skimming through Williams' article, I see no reason to believe that he is unlikely to survive a WP:AfD, so I think it is definitely worth discussing how he died, but only in his article. I haven't looked at Shapiro's article but I'm sure the same can be said of him. guninvalid (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - I am not opposed to keeping 2025 San Diego Cessna Citation II crash, but I would like to see the article history kept in tact. I do think that this type of aviation accident is somewhat routine. That being said, I believe that the article should be merged into or redirected to Daniel Williams (musician) and/or Dave Shapiro (music agent), preferably the latter, as he is the owner of the plane. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or recreate later: Voting as someone with an interest in aviation accidents. Not too familiar with policy however I believe this particular disaster should meet WP:GNG once the NTSB investigation report is released. Moving this article to draft would allow it to be expanded with potential further coverage and information down the road, and also allow it the opportunity to be assessed by WP:AfC. If in 6 months there is nothing else that comes out in light of the incident, a mention on the relevant pages like 2025 in aviation would probably suffice. 11wallisb (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Kosova

[edit]
Air Kosova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, but it's a bit harder to tell as not a single reference link works. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UAVDACH

[edit]
UAVDACH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A highly promotional article about a pressure group that seems to fail WP:NORG. Having nuked some of the spam in the article, I tried to look for sources, and found none (the group seems to be known as "UAV DACH", and even searching for that got me nothing usable as a source, let alone something that would contribute towards NORG). That said, it is possible that I may be unable to access or find local sources in a search because of my location, and I think bringing it to AfD would also bring this article to the wider community's attention and increase the possibility of sources being found, if they exist. JavaHurricane 18:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pixhawk

[edit]
Pixhawk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

currently, there are zero in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Searches did not turn up enough to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 01:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The main issue here seems to be lack of independent sources covering the standard. There are quite a few academic references, but the only highly cited papers seem to be the original publications on the standard. If someone finds better sources, ping me and I'll likely shift my vote as it looks like there is some research on this for use in military (i.e. Ukrainian) drone programs. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For engaging participation here to discuss above comments. If someone can add sources here as suggested and evaluate them, the discussion will see a clear consensus. If needed, ping me, I will take part in the evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The article already has sufficient citations to establish notability. The first citation is an independent source that notes the importance of Pixhawk; it is from a conference proceeding, which is lower tier than a journal article, but still written by academics, peer reviewed for importance and published in a IEEE publication. It wouldn't hurt to have more than one really good independent academic source, but that's already more than many articles could hope for. Some of the other citations are from the Ardupilot and PX4 documentation, which are the most significant implementations of Pixhawk, and indirectly show notability of the technology through their own notability. (The remaining citations are from Pixhawk documentation, which are useful but not relevant for proving notability.)

    An earlier comment said that a web search doesn't turn anything up. In fact, a quick search shows a thriving ecosystem of Pixhawk implementations. This is analogous to how a quick search for "keyboard" wouldn't turn up an article about the importance of keyboards, because they are so widespread that the results are flooded with results about actual keyboards you may wish to buy.

    Regarding the original submission by Onel5969 (talk · contribs): that editor originally blanked the article and replaced with a redirect. Their talk page is filled with objections that they are overzealously doing this and not notifying relevant editors. They even deleted my comment on their talk page asking them (very politely) to be less disruptive. They submitted this AfD when I reverted this change; this seems to be a retaliatary action, which is not a valid reason for an AfD nomination. Their own user page openly admits that they often blank or AfD an article purely to provoke other editors to make edits rather than a genuine belief about the notability of articles. Of course this AfD discussion must be made on its own merits but I think their starting comment should be read with this context in mind. Quietbritishjim (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - regarding the above !vote. Yet more attacking language from this editor. The nomination was not retaliatory, but rather reactive to your simply restoring the substandardly cited article with no improvement. I waited a day to see if you intended to bring it up to standard, and you made no attempt. In fact, you still have failed to do so. And Anonrfjwhuikdzz's evaluation is still spot on.Onel5969 TT me 15:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation articles proposed for deletion WP:PROD

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Aviation&oldid=1292810095"