Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation

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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation/archive

watch

Aviation Articles for Deletion (WP:AFD)

Air India data breach

Air India data breach (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:NEVENT. Should be merged to Air India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: A major cybersecurity incident, well documented in major news sources in detail. Also included a book chapter from Taylor & Francis that discusses this event. Participated in the page rescue on behalf of WP:ARS. Charlie (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: It was a notable event. Lots of reliable major news outlets covered it. Article is notable enough for WP:INDIA related topics and events. Imwin567 (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to Air India: This cybersecurity attack was covered by all media houses, but that alone does not qualify it to be written as a standalone page. Moreover, it did not have any long-lasting impact on users' data security. Sethi752 (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge Lots of businesses have experienced data breaches that have been covered in the news, a separate page is not needed for just a few short paragraphs. Reywas92^Talk 18:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

List of Delta Air Lines destinations

List of Delta Air Lines destinations (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 2018 RFC found consensus that: "...Wikipedia should not have these lists, due to the excessive detail and maintenance required for keeping a local version up to date of data which is available directly from airline websites anyway. Basically, the arguments in Wikipedia is not a directory." This was later upheld in a 2024 AFD discussion specifically related to the list of United Airlines destinations. In light of that, I propose deleting this page. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 60#RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations found that these lists do not violate WP:NOT. Reywas92^Talk 16:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  Keep the cited RFC is overruled by latest consesus. Axisstroke (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Operational flight plan

Operational flight plan (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)

Duplicative of flight plan (and flight planning). I initially redirected this to flight plan in November, but was reverted by the article's creator last month. This article is little more than a dictionary definition of the subject, and I see no evidence its continued existence is justified when it can easily be incorporated in either flight plan or flight planning. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Transportation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge - Effectively the same thing, best to keep content from both pages LemonberryPie (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• These are two different things.
  In the official wiki system launched by EUROCONTROL these are two different articles: OFP and FPL.
  In the US, OFP may be called CFP.

  Examples:

Collapsed wall of text added by Leksey. Trainsandotherthings (talk)

Example 1: Filed Flight Plan (FPL) (FPL-AAL123-IS -B738/M-SDE2E3FGHIJ3J4J5M1RWXYZ/SB1D1 -KJFK0250 -N0455F300 DCT MERIT J80 LVZ J230 AIR J80 DJB DCT -KORD0210 KDTW -PBN/A1B1C1D1L1O1S1S2 NAV/RNVD1E2A1 DOF/230425 REG/N917NN EET/KZOB0034 CZYZ0051 SEL/ABCD OPR/AAL) Example 2: Operational Flight Plan (OFP / CFP) N172SB/11 APR/SVO-LED Page 1 [ OFP ] -------------------------------------------------------------------- N172SB 11APR2025 UUEE-ULLI C172 N172SB RELEASE 0348 11APR25 OFP 1 SHEREMETYEVO-PULKOVO WX PROG 1115 1118 1121 1200 OBS 1018 1018 1018 1018 ATC C/S N172SB UUEE/SVO ULLI/LED CRZ SYS 2200RPM 11APR2025 N172SB 1545/1605 1919/1927 GND DIST 324 CESSNA 172R / IO-360-L2A STA 1915 AIR DIST 324 CTOT:.... G/C DIST 324 AVG WIND 000/000 MAXIMUM TOW 1111 LAW 1111 ZFW 1111 AVG W/C P000 ESTIMATED TOW 1095 LAW 1023 ZFW 949 AVG ISA P000 AVG FF KGS/HR 22 FUEL BIAS P00.0 ALTN EETU TKOF ALTN ....... FL STEPS UUEE/0120/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- DISP RMKS WARNING: FLIGHT EXCEEDS AIRCRAFT RANGE -------------------------------------------------------------------- PLANNED FUEL --------------------------------- FUEL ARPT FUEL TIME --------------------------------- TRIP LED 72 0314 CONT 14 MIN 6 0014 ALTN TAY 55 0149 FINRES 19 0045 --------------------------------- MINIMUM T/OFF FUEL 152 0603 --------------------------------- EXTRA -6 0000 --------------------------------- T/OFF FUEL 146 0549 TAXI SVO 6 0020 --------------------------------- BLOCK FUEL SVO 152 PIC EXTRA ..... TOTAL FUEL ..... REASON FOR PIC EXTRA ............ -------------------------------------------------------------------- FMC INFO: FINRES+ALTN 74 TRIP+TAXI 78 -------------------------------------------------------------------- NO TANKERING RECOMMENDED (P) -------------------------------------------------------------------- I HEREWITH CONFIRM THAT I HAVE PERFORMED A THOROUGH SELF BRIEFING ABOUT THE DESTINATION AND ALTERNATE AIRPORTS OF THIS FLIGHT INCLUDING THE APPLICABLE INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES, AIRPORT FACILITIES, NOTAMS AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT PARTICULAR INFORMATION. DISPATCHER: ROXANNE KEITH PIC NAME: SPIRIDONOV, ALEKSE TEL: +1 800 555 0199 PIC SIGNATURE: ...............

Leksey (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• • Backing up your argument with a wall of gibberish is not the route to take. Demonstrate with cited sources from which an article can be written, what the subject is. Where's a book that explains this, and where in the book is the explanation, for example? Uncle G (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • I've collapsed your giant wall of text. Please do NOT add any more examples. That phone number may need to be oversighted as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

1982 Sukhumi Dranda Airport runway collision

1982 Sukhumi Dranda Airport runway collision (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)

Article has only primary (database) sourcing, and I could not find any significant coverage from a basic BEFORE search. The article has been tagged for reliance on a single source and not meeting GNG since August of last year, and no real improvements have been forthcoming. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge with Sukhumi Babushara Airport. I searched Russian sources, but no one mentions it even the history page on the official airport website. Sadly, doesn't know a good Russian database to make a perfectly throurough research. LastJabberwocky (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge into Sukhumi Babushara Airport as an alternative to deletion per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT – Other than databases, there exists no reliable secondary sources that provide significant or in-depth coverage of the event nor are there any demonstrated lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. This was the best I managed to find but isn't significant coverage of the collision:

  Спустя три года, 14 августа 1982 года, в Сухумском аэропорту самолет Jet L-410 столкнулся на взлетно-посадочной полосе с Ту-134А. В авиаинциденте погибли все, кто находился в «Турболете» - 9 пассажиров и два члена экипажа.
  [Three years later, on August 14, 1982, at the Sukhumi airport, a Jet L-410 collided with a Tu-134A on the runway. The incident killed everyone on board the Turbolet - nine passengers and two crew members.]

  Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

American Eagle Flight 5401

American Eagle Flight 5401 (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)

Has been turned into a redirect multiple times by several editors (myself included back in 2019). Fails WP:SUSTAINED, and normally aviation incidents which result in zero fatalities are best served as redirects. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Puerto Rico. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Redirect - specifically to American Eagle (airline brand)#Accidents and incidents (where it was until recently) It's a run-of-the-mill incident; prop planes bounce down runways all the time, causing injuries, absent any sustained coverage or any claim in the article for notability this should be a redirect. JeffUK 12:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Striking for now, see discussion RE ongoing changes to procedures. JeffUK 10:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to American Eagle (airline brand)#Accidents and incidents as an alternative to deletion – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have significant, in-depth, nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep I just added that the accident resulted in changes to procedures and regulations affecting airlines, and so has an lasting effect: The accident let to inclusion of "bounced landing recovery techniques" in pilot trainings. (Note to nominator rationale: It is not a good AFD reasoning: Has been turned into a redirect multiple times by several editors (myself included back in 2019) The article includedes now much more references, is improved and is in better shape compared to the previous time the nominator redirected the page.) 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

What proof is there that there were lasting effects? Just because recommendations were issued doesn't necessarily mean that they were ever implemented. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Aviationwikiflight:: Recommendations were as good as directly implemented: "On September 25, 2004, Executive Airlines incorporated bounced landing recovery techniques in its Airplane Operating Manual (AOM). The bounced landing recovery guidance states the following: In the event the aircraft should bounce after landing, hold or re-establish a normal landing attitude and immediately add power as necessary to control the rate of descent. When using this recovery technique, exercise extreme caution not to increase the pitch attitude above normal as this will only increase the height of the bounce and may cause entry into stall warning. DO NOT push over, as this will only cause another bounce and damage the nose gear. If there is any doubt as to a safe recovery, the captain will call for and conduct an immediate go-around. Apply go-around power and fly the Missed Approach/Rejected Landing Profile. DO NOT retract the Landing Gear until a positive rate of climb is established because a second touchdown may occur during the recovery. ". Next to that, when I Google it, I see the topic reached a lot of attentention in pilot training now, 2 pages I opened for instance pilotmall and pilotinstitute. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Do we have a source that says this incident lead to the inclusion of bounced landing recovery techniques even in the EA manual (The source in the article mentions both things, but does not say it was causally linked)? If it was just one airline implementing them, rather than a change to national regulations or guidance I still don't think that's enough; the source also says that some airlines and manufacturers already had bounced landing techniques in their training programmes.

If the FAA did in fact "Require all 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 and 135 air carriers to incorporate bounced landing recovery techniques in their flight manuals and to teach these techniques during initial and recurrent training. (A-05-30)" (as recommended by the report for this accident).. AND did so as a direct result of this incident, (Not, for instance, because there were hundreds of similar incidents with similar recommendations) then that changes things. JeffUK 10:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/12/2013-26845/qualification-service-and-use-of-crewmembers-and-aircraft-dispatchers comes close. "The FAA determined that training on recovery from bounced landing is necessary based on FAA review of accident history including.." the mentions two incidents, including flight 5401. I think that does merit inclusion in the article. "This is one of the accidents that caused bounced training landing to become mandatory" does make this feel more notable... JeffUK 10:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

See for the main source page numbered as 28 of the Aircraft Accident Report. (From this date other airliners copied related phrasing to their manuals, however without referring to this accident; and also not to another accident.) 95.98.65.177 (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

My point is, we have evidence that one airliner changed its procedure due to this specific accident, with the other airliners following with related phrasings. And, as I’m aware of, all airliners incorporated bounced landing recovery techniques. Such changes/additions are (of course) not explained; but the fact is the airliners incorporated it after this high-impact bounced landing recovery techniques accident. This makes it highly likely that the awareness of bounced landing recovery techniques after this specific accident caused a lasting effect. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment The page needs more references. And, also this week I have had two articles that I originated and had been sent to redirect reappear as main space articles, this one and the Sergio Blass one. I wonder how that happens? It was not me!!! (lol) Jeanette the dancer Martin {*wink*) 10:22, 9 April, 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to American Eagle (airline brand)#Accidents and incidents per WP:ATD. The only linked sources are two local articles from around the same day as the accident with only very basic levels of coverage (WP:NOTNEWS), plus the accident report itself (which I don't think actually qualifies as a "secondary source", it is more of a "primary source" as per Aviationwikiflight). As such, I do not think that WP:NEVENT is passed. Flip^andFlopped ツ 01:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Aero Pictorial

Aero Pictorial (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)

This doesn't appear to meet WP:NFILM / WP:GNG. No obvious WP:ATD. No sources. Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - This aerial photography firm whose photographer was Cyril Murrell, produced an important series of photographs of England, Scotland and Wales across twenty years of work. Photographic works by Aero Pictorial / Cyril Murrell are held in numerous notable permanent collections. I have improved the article, adding sources and eight notable collections that include Aero's photographs including the New York Public Library; Canmore National Record of the Historic Environment; National Collection of Aerial Photography, Historic Environment Scotland; University of Cambridge; Newcastle University; Amgueddfa Cymru (Museum Wales); National Trust Collections; Surrey History Centre Netherzone (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Netherzone's extensive analysis and the correctness of the analysis. Since these photographs are exhibited in many museum collections they easily meet both GNG and the visual arts criteria for notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Steve Bentley

Steve Bentley (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)

Article on CEO of an aviation services company which reads like a resume. References are links to his company website, collated company info by cbinsights, an industry paper about his company completing a training session, and a document by the FAA - none of which are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Page has already been PRODd in the past. Spacepine (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable business person. Orange sticker (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

2025 Brooklyn Park TBM-700 crash

2025 Brooklyn Park TBM-700 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)

The article was WP:TOOSOON and the creator has a history of making articles too soon. I only made it cause there was a proposed deletion warning and as of now though, there is more information and no survivors, which might make it be able to stay. If the pilot is the only occupant though, we should delete the article. -Bloxzge 025 ツ — Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• I think we should wait and see with more information if this is going to be significant or not.Lucthedog2 (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, United States of America, and Minnesota. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment – "This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 30." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  •Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, single fatality incident as confirmed by emergency responders on scene, see ASN database for updated narrative. A crash in a highly populated area does not make such crash notable as we shouldnt base articles of what coulda or woulda happened. ASN Database Lolzer3k 14:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep This is just like the Learjet fiasco that happened in Philadelphia, A plane crashed into a highly populated area mind you, just like the learjet in Philly. The page still needs to be updated with info, and needs to be currently updated, as an investigation into this crash is currently going on. I also agree with the people claiming that this article is "too soon" but just like the learjet crash, an investigation is going on. Shaneapickle (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not just like the Philadelphia crash though as the plane was a medical jet with six occupants including a pediatric kid. It also crashed in a populated area but with a fatality and dozens of injuries. Also, with every plane crash there's an investigation, so that's not a reason to keep it. Plane crashes with a single fatality happen everyday, populated area or not, without articles. This one is no exception. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

•Note above arguement by user Shaniapickle seems to be a case of WP:OSE, invalidating their vote. Lolzer3k 14:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete because this was not an important crash in any sense after all. Lucthedog2 (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• I agree since there were no survivors out of the plane that has a capacity of about 7. I only started this when the article was WP:TOOSOON and when a proposed deletion nomination was posted.

• Delete. Aviation accidents and incidents keep happening (https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/monthly.aspx) and a fair proportion get reported on some news. The entries that do deserve articles are those which are landmark and follow in radical safety procedure or technology changes (e.g. UA232, or read https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/inadequacies-and-a-misunderstanding/ etc). Waiting with a non-notable article promotes speculations which I feel unhealthy same as explained eg at https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/april/pilot/safety-spotlight-lessons-from-tragedy BACbKA (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:NOTTOOSOON. Coverage by independent news sources. The fact that aviation incidents keep happening and reported on does not negate its notability. — ERcheck (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  National level news coverage, including CNN and ABC News. — ERcheck (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  It was WP:TOOSOON as the creator made the article within an hour of the crash. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per @ERcheck

Waleed (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: run-of-the-mill light aircraft crash, fails WP:EVENT and in particular WP:EVENTCRIT #4. Also WP:TOOSOON, though of course WP:USUAL caveats apply in the unlikely event that this turns out to have WP:LASTING effects or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. only 1 death. 125.227.26.172 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, only news coverage, no secondary analysis. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

.Delete this should be deleted because the news about it is dwindling. Lucthedog2 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete No news about this crash since the day of the crash, fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROTM. Protoeus (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to Anoka County–Blaine Airport, the flight's ultimate destination, where short mention should be made as is usually done with aviation incidents. Nathannah • 📮 18:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Very little coverage has been made on it in the past few days and it has been dwindling. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete run of the mill news story with no secondary coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Anoka County–Blaine Airport. Run of the mill accident so not worthy of a standalone article, but can be mentioned at the article for the airport. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Anoka County–Blaine Airport. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT #4 as a tragic but routine aviation incident. There is limited local follow-up, e.g. Star Tribune, but nothing to indicate the event was of enduring significance. Sdkb ^talk 21:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete/Merge into whatever local airport this came from on grounds of notability, ROTM and WP:NOTNEWS. I only stumbled into this today and only because I was searching for the Hudson crash. Borgenland (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Vasu Raja

Vasu Raja (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)

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Aviation, Maryland, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep - Vasu Raja was the high-profile architect of the world's largest airline's commercial strategy including a unique take on distribution for two years before being forced out and continues to be a notable industry expert. He has sufficient coverage to meet the general notability guideline and curious whether a search was done before nomination. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• weak keep: Seems to be written by a Senior Contributor (which I think is a staff position), Forbes [1]. Not an extensive amount of sourcing, but there is some. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: I think notability was just temporary based on reading few sources from google search. WP:NTEMP Asteramellus (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  • ...did you read NTEMP? Notability is not temporary. If it was notable, ever, it is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: The independent and secondary coverage (such as this piece in the WSJ) focuses on his firing from American Airlines, making this a case of WP:BLP1E. The rest of the coverage of him separate from his turbulent tenure at AA is non-independent, primary and/or trivial. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable at all. Just a person who got a job. Reads lika a resume. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Clear case of WP:BLP1E, no independent coverage prior to the firing. Hmr (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)