Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation

WP:DELAVWP: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)

2023 Boeing P-8 Poseidon runway overrun

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

Fails WP:EVENT as does not appear to be any significant lasting effect and was a non-fatal runway overrun with no injuries and a potentially repairable aircraft. No indication of WP:PERSISTENCE. Dfadden (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Dfadden (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of lasting notability, the plane is still "being evaluated for return to operational condition", but this was two years ago. I can't image it's still being evaluated... If the article hasn't even been updated since the event, there are likely no further sources to be found. I can't see anything of note in the news past the time of the event, my search brings nothing up. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt seem notable with no injuries or sustained issues. Metallurgist (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I first thought this event was worth it. However, there's no updates for about 2 years whatsoever. No lasting effects. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay#Accidents and incidents, based on guidance at WP:ATD-R. An entry here already exists for this incident. Sourced enough for inclusion in the article, but not enough lasting impact or coverage for its own article. nf utvol (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no sustain coverage at all. That was the only way this was ever going to make this notable. No report has come out. But this was a minor incident that has no business as a article. Zaptain United (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present)#2023/20 November (if this gets approved we can add an anchor) per ATD-R and WP:AIRCRASH, which informs us that military incidents are mostly non-prominent and therefore not deserving of a dedicated article. But, you know, redirects are cheap. There is a third place (in addition to nf utvol's suggestion) where the subject is mentioned in some detail—Boeing P-8 Poseidon#United States—but I'm suggesting the list article due to it being about incidents, which better reflects what this article is about. For a similar treatment see Japan Airlines Flight 115, which redirects to Japan Air Lines Flight 123#1978 tailstrike incident, not Itami Airport#Accidents and incidents. StonyBrook _babble 14:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ExpressJet Airlines Flight 2816

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most accidents) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. Zaptain United (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think this could meet point 4 by the fact that it was the first time that the Department of Transportation fined airlines for a ground delay, which was reported on specifically in several substantial outlets: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34127317 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-airlines-fined-in-minn-tarmac-stranding/ ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothingburger, maybe a mention in the incidents section of the airports page. Metallurgist (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Zeusch Aviation Beechcraft King Air crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and United Kingdom. XYZ1233212 (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sure I understand but could you elaborate how this is any different from the other crashes i mentioned on the See also section? An exact replica of this plane crash was back in 2017 same result and same plane model; 2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash. As I said but I also want to hear from other experienced Wikipedian editors on what they think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megabyte21 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided some information about previous aviation articles below that were created very quickly, followed by a swift AfD. This one falls into the same WP:DELAY category. 11WB (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can you claim it is An exact replica of this plane crash was back in 2017 same result and same plane model; 2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash? The investigation has obly just begun and hasnt reached a single conclusion about probably cause. Sure there are some obvious similarities, but an encyclopedia needs to be based on facts not speculation. Dfadden (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This incident likely resulted in many fatalities, probably in the double-digits and shut down a major airport. Because of that, this article is notable and it does not fall under point 4. Cyrobyte (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Four dead, not "double-digits". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters. Any decent closer would discard WP:BIGNUMBER arguments before determining consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and Redirect. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON might be worth considering here. The event literally just happened, there's no way of knowing whether or not this will have any lasting coverage or wider impact. As of right now it's a tragic accident that may, or may not, have sufficient coverage in the upcoming weeks and months to justify a standalone article. Send it to draft now for incubation, and put a redirect to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents in the meantime. nf utvol (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to closer. There appears to be a raft of "Keep" comments that are nothing more than votes, or do not make any policy-based arguments and are not substantially different from the examples listed in WP:ATA. nf utvol (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a very notable event as there has been significant worldwide news coverage on this aviation accident (not just on UK news). Think of the helicopter that crashed in Manhattan earlier this year. Although it was a flight with only a few passengers, it still gained significant news coverage. This one is the same as this. Prothe1st (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all aviation accidents get news coverage, often worldwide especially if there are fatalities, with a burst of coverage in the immediate aftermath of the accident, and maybe another burst when the accident investigation report is issued. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Light aircraft crashes very rarely get any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond that initial news cycle, and it is equally rare to see any WP:LASTING effects (such as changes to aircraft or airport procedures). The article can always be recreated if such continued coverage or lasting effects do occur. But in the meantime, this crash clearly falls under WP:EVENTCRIT#4: 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. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, london southend airport is still closed and will remain closed “until further notice” according to news reports. It has been two days since it’s happened and this crash clearly affects a lot of people such as those travelling or returning to/from holiday from this airport by airlines like easyjet. Also is going to cost easyjet quite a bit of money. So that is also why it further gives this event additional enduring significance to make it a notable event. Also if you read some of the other comments, you can see that someone said it’s the deadliest aviation accident in the uk since the helicopter crash in 2018 in Leicester, and also the deadliest airplane crash since the plane crash in shoreham. Prothe1st (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closure of a relatively minor airport for a few days, and the associated short-term impact on passengers and airlines, are unimportant with regard to notability. Imagine yourself 10 years from now when assessing their importance. Likewise, being the deadliest accident since the last deadlier one is not in itself indicative of notability! Rosbif73 (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable incident, four confirmed dead and airport closed for two days. Lots of significant news coverage. Definitely passes WP:GNG. This is Paul (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This seems to have been moved since the afd discussion was created. This is Paul (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unsure of the policy on this, but the article in question is now called Zeusch Aviation Flight 1. I am unable to comment on notability yet as this article was only created today and then subsequently nominated for deletion 90 minutes later. (Similar occurrences happened here, here and here). I think WP:DELAY should apply to those 3 examples and this AfD. 11WB (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the crash took place less than 12 hours ago, and the article name has changed, along with information being updated regularly, I have added the recentevent tag to the article to reflect this. I think this should be the case going forward for articles created so soon after the event. 11WB (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it should follow WP:DELAY, which says It is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable. This should be a merge to London Southend Airport. An article about an event should not have its own article until there is sustained secondary coverage, which it definitely does not at this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*I second this. Redirect (as the information is already there) to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents for the time being, until a clear need for a standalone article is shown. 11WB (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the newer comments for keep below, I am reconsidering my vote. I think in this instance I will withdraw my vote for redirection and change it to keep based on @Harrz's point regarding this being the most deadly UK aviation accident since the 2018 Leicester helicopter crash. 11WB (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents. Light aircraft crashes are rarely notable and there are no reasons to suspect this one will be. Usual caveats apply: in the unlikely event that we do see significant sustained coverage beyond the initial news cycle, or other notability factors come to light, it would be possible to recreate an article at that time. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then explain to me why you deleted it 2000 Teheran Airport collision, Red Air Flight 203, 2009 F-27 Indonesian Air Force crash, Boston Logan runway incursion, O'Hare runway incursion? Why? Szymondro1123 (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And West Coast Airlines F-27 crash Szymondro1123 (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And 748 Air Services crash Szymondro1123 (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to argue that we should keep this article because other "similar" incidents have articles? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although it may look like it isn't notable, it is since 4 people are dead, and London Southend Airport had to close for 2 days. Another thing is that the article was just recently created, give it some time! Subbie2010 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i agree with you Szymondro1123 (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It occurred to me that this could, or maybe should, have been created in WikiNews – but I could not find this event reported there. On balance, since this article already exists, I vote to keep – at least for now and we can revisit notability at a later date, after the accident report has been submitted. While other fatal aircraft accidents may not (yet) have their own Wiki page, I am sympathetic to having Wiki pages for such fatal aircraft accidents as a balanced and independent repository of records of such events.

Enquire (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Szymondro1123 (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I think it is too early to decide since it just happened. It has got a lot of attention for crashing at a major airport. On the other hand, only 4 people died, and it was a smaller aircraft. I don't think anybody famous was onboard. But I am still split on whether this should get deleted or not. Zaptain United (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created rapidly. Whilst I think the accident will likely be notable eventually, at the moment it's definitely too early to rely on preliminary reporting for an entire article. 11WB (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: definitely notable - being reported worldwide, shut down an international airport indefinitely and there will definitely be lasting coverage as there is an ongoing investigation and this is the deadliest aviation accident in the UK since 2018 (Leicester), the deadliest plane crash in the UK since 2015 (Shoreham) and the deadliest commercial plane crash in the UK since 2008 or 1999 (Biggin Hill or Glasgow - not sure); some of those may be incorrect, if so I am sorry! harrz ^talk 00:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough for inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to London Southend Airport#Accidents and incidents. No indication that this is anything other than a non-notable accident with minimal loss of life. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay. i'm going to go for keep 208.161.12.215 (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Incubate until after the current news spike has settled down and some actual factual information emerges about the WP:LASTING significance of this accident. There is a lot of coverage right now (plane crashes are always hot news items), but WP:EVENT requires more than this to establish notability and its a good idea to WP:DELAY to see if that threshhold will be met since wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In the meantime would support a mention in the London Southend Airport accidents and incidents section Dfadden (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i don't know what the hell happened. keep for a while until we know what the hell happened 208.161.12.215 (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the complete opposite of what the policy says we should do! If we dont know what the hell happened, then we shouldnt be making articles in an encyclopedia that should be factual! Wikipedia is not a news blog! Dfadden (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy is The worst in world! Szymondro1123 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Szymondro1123: If you find policy to be bad, then I suggest you take it to the appropriate talk page and advocate for changes. Complaining about it here is, at best, immature, and at worst, a sign that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. nf utvol (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm stays on keep Szymondro1123 (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
soon all the plane crashes will be removed if you are going in this direction Szymondro1123 (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Os ari us 22:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant crash, closed the airport for two days, and four dead. This is not a minor news story, it has been reported internationally; WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Also keep per Harrz's comment about this being the most deadly UK aviation accident since 2018. Cagliost (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Szymondro1123 (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article was only recently created less than a week ago and there aren't that much citations right now but when there are more citations, it might be worth to keep this article. 2A0A:EF40:5BD:C501:A4D0:1AFF:FE05:7D0F (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Szymondro1123 (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Draftify An important airport closure for 2 days it’s not a normal thing on aviation accidents, but I’m still not sure about WP:LASTING (thinking about that is WP:CRYSTAL), but for right now, Im fine with a weak keep, Im going to see the coverage of this like a month later to see if it passes WP:LASTING. Protoeus (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but likely Redirect to a list later. I reviewed the Notability Essays based on the arguments presented above and it seems to me that small accidents fall close to the edge of notability. WP:EVENTCRITERIA clearly states that routine news events (including most accidents) are not notable unless something gives them enduring significance. This article, and most articles like it, don't have overt enduring significance. The reason I think that's close to the edge of notability is because I value the overall sum of accident information. I think they are notable in concert. However, my personal beliefs are insufficient criteria for keeping, and the essays seem to say that articles which are only useful in concert with other articles are more appropriately aggregated in lists. Therefore, I believe this article may as well be kept for the time being to let its significance play out, but if nothing changes it must eventually be redirected to an appropriate list. There's a lot of similar articles that need this treatment, as well. -Baltarstar (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that an article must be notable NOW in order to be kept: we can't guess today whether the subject will become notable at some point in the future. If additional factors giving an event enduring significance come to light later, a deleted article can always be recreated. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KLM Flight 1204

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most accidents) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. This is a forgettable incident that only has article because it happened on the same day as Jeju Air Flight 2216 and PAL Airlines Flight 2259. Zaptain United (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wanted to keep this article at first but then I realized that it was a minor incident with no sustain coverage passed the initial reporting. When the preliminary report came out, there was basically no reporting of it. That honestly shows that no news website is willing to report on a minor incident. It shows that even when the final report comes out, there will be no coverage of it. This clearly only got a Wikipedia article because it conveniently happened at the same time as a major crash and a minor accident. I am not against redirecting it, but it is clearly not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Zaptain United (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Extent of retrospective coverage is this article in es:Estadio Deportivo and this in The Express Tribune, neither providing analysis but simply listing them as happening among other airline incidents of December 2024. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 05:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to minimal impact and reporting. I will add a sentence at 2024 in Norway. Geschichte (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indications of ongoing or lasting coverage that would lend notability, and does not fit the guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH for inclusion in Accidents and incidents sections. Redirect to Sandefjord Airport, Torp#Accidents and incidents. Coverage there is sufficient, there are no indications of ongoing coverage that would lend notability to this incident. nf utvol (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether it even warrants a mention there. Geschichte (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right here...took a second look at WP:AIRCRASH, which I hadn't reviewed in a long time, and it doesn't fit the criteria there. Might be worth having a discussion as to whether or not those criteria are too tight, but until it changes it is what it is. nf utvol (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The author here, and OK, I think this is really a small incident that didn't need to be a Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohok12 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, at least, can it be a draft? Ohok12 — Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here is the original author of this page

Yes, I agree this is just a small incident, but being more recognised due to its date occured

However, can it atleast be a draft? Ohok12 (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it were to become a draft, that would indicate that it has potential to be a future Wikipedia article. What do you think indicates such potential? Geschichte (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if that was the meaning of being a draft then ok, I think just delete it. Ohok12 (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I don't think it will make an impact on the media when it comes to the report though being upgraded to serious incident. However, after thinking again, I think its potential of recognition seems to be likely, so I think it should be a draft Ohok12 (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: run-of-the-mill minor incident, with no continuing coverage beyond the initial news cycle. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In reality, it has upgraded to serious incident (on 18th March 2025), but still considered as unnoticeable due to lack of coverage. I still respect your point and that's the fact. There are many crashes that I think not even being mentioned in the media, but still having a page for it. Ohok12 (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - restore original redirect to List of KLM accidents and incidents § Notable incidents without fatalities. I agree with other participants' arguments that the incident probably doesn't merit an article in its own right. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, I have no issue with it Ohok12 (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With this condition, this article will likely be deleted in the coming days. I also understand why this article was nominated for deletion and have more understanding of Wikipedia rules and the function of "draft". I apologize if this has caused any impact on the Wikipedia community, as I have only known these things for a short time. At the same time, I also thank those who have contributed to my articles in the past. I will now convert it to a draft (because I want it to at least reflect my efforts) before this is deleted. Once again, thank you for everyone's contributions to this article.Ohok12 (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No draft, please. I explained above what drafts are for. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No injuries, not even a scratch, no notability Metallurgist (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Late vote as there were some circumstances that took place during this AfD which prevented me from voting sooner. This incident appears to be a straightforward emergency landing of an aircraft. Not notable enough, in my opinion, for an article of its own. 11WB (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fujairah National Group

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

I would have draftified this but it’s long past the 90 day limit so bringing here for consensus. I’m not sure about notability and my preference is to send to draft for possible improvement. . Mccapra (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Arab Emirates. Mccapra (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Health and fitness, Companies, Travel and tourism, Education, Engineering, Aviation, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PAL Airlines Flight 2259

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

Non-notable accident. All that happened is the airport closed for 90 minutes. This is a pretty common occurrence throughout Canada and I can, if required give several examples, one that affected former prime minister Stephen Harper ("CADORS report for Kenn Borek (GKBP)". Transport Canada.).

While Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents, in particular (Airline and airport articles, is just advice on what should be included it is a reasonable guide to inclusion. There is no indication in the article that the accident meets any of the guidelines. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT given the complete absence of continued coverage or lasting impact on anybody. There was a rough landing, and it was slightly dramatic, but nothing I'd expect to be even worth mentioning a few months after the accident. All the coverage is WP:ROUTINE, and (best I can see) didn't even continue into 2025. I don't see a point in even mentioning this at the PAL Airlines, where the information is present but tagged for being undue. I also don't see a point in mentioning it at Halifax Stanfield International Airport, where it's mentioned in a sentence. (IMO both mentions should be removed, but I won't do that while the AfD in in progress) GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 16:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About any mention in 2025, I think it is clear that if the Transportation Safety Board of Canada released any news about it, it will be mentioned again. I agree with you that I failed the Wikipedia notability, but I also agree with User:SportingFlyer that, like I said, it will be mentioned again when it is newsworthy. As they're still investigating, I think we should wait until they finally released their report, and see how the media react. Ohok12 (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the incident itself is absolutely newsworthy, and you're quite right that there will likely be some, limited, coverage when the final report gets released. But Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. To keep this article, I'd want sources some distance from the event itself that analyse the impact it had on the world. So sort of beyond an "X government released Report Y that said the accident was caused by Z". What does the accident mean for the world? Did it cause any major changes in laws or regulations, did it kill several notable people did it have implications for international relations, did it achieve any form of cultural significance? A simple incident like this... they don't typically tend to get sources that give that sort of coverage. Never say never, of course, but this particular incident wasn't intentional, nobody died and the newspapers lost interest very quickly. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 22:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PAL Airlines and keep a mention here. Also, if this becomes newsworthy again, it should be able to be quickly restored. SportingFlyer T·C 16:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the author, for me, the aircraft suffered substantial damage, which basically has followed the second rule of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents: "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or". Ohok12 (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think landing gear failure incidents have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Whilst I think the RED Air one is just notable enough to be kept, I don't think this one is. 11WB (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reading more comments, I have decided to affirm my own comment as a delete vote. 11WB (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : This article is not notable at all. It has no sustain coverage. It was a minor accident with no injuries or fatalities. I have not seen any reporting on this accident since December. Zaptain United (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that I can’t compare this with fully-investigated cases, as the TSBC didn’t release any piece of information about this, we cannot ensure is this REALLY unnoticeable or not. In addition, I don’t think this just some minor incident, as with that said, JetBlue Flight 292 and Air Serbia Flight 324 should also be minor incidents. However, like you have said, I agree with you that this has no sustain coverage and also I didn’t have any information about it since December 2024. With the fact that this is Wikipedia:NOTNEWS, it is apparent that your statement is valid in most of the points. Ohok12 (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly it's probably time for a broader discussion of what makes an air crash notable as more important incidents don't lead to the complete loss of the aircraft. I don't think this quite reaches the bar yet but there also hasn't been a final investigation. SportingFlyer T·C 10:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NEVENT, An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, it still kinda have some question about it, Example:

- When comparing Flight 2259 and Flight 324, they popularity were the same. The difference is that Flight 2259 was more serious than Flight 324. I don’t know do you agree with that, but that just my opinion.

- There were literal crashes (such as Azimuth flight A45051, Red Air Flight 203) were considered as “unnotable” while some incidents (such as AS Flight 2059, Ryanair 4978, Delta Flight 89) were known as notable. It makes a paradox that some unusual, but minor issues were notable, and serious issues were not noticeable. In my opinion, like User:SportingFlyer has said, we should make a discussion whether a plane incident is notable. Ohok12 (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEVENT is incredibly ambiguous about these airline incident edge cases, hence the need for a discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 12:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question, how is WP:NEVENT ambiguous for events like this? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Examples:

- Delta Air Lines Flight 89, I don't see any long-lasting impact for this incident (like no one died, the media found it no more newsworthy, it just like a silly mistake though having the expert response)

- CommutAir Flight 4933, I don't know why is this approved to be page as is just a normal incident (like overshooting the runway is the thing that many of us saw, though it was written off)

- JetBlue Flight 191, until now, I don't why is it still count as the plane wasn't damaged, only having personal impact

I think this is enough to see the confusion of the Wikipedia:Notability (events). If it isn't because of it, then it may be the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Ohok12 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is because there is sustain coverage in JetBlue Flight 191 and CommutAir Flight 4933. Delta Air Lines Flight 89 is an article I am confused managed to stayed up because it has no sustain coverage and there seems to be no long-term impact. But there were 3 AFDs which said to keep the article. That one at least got a lot more media attention to this one here. Zaptain United (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight: It's ambiguous because at most AfDs, what's important is the type of coverage something receives. With air crashes, people interpret the overall significance of the event, which is more subjective and is leading to odd results, especially as more . "It can't be notable because no one died, it was just a hull loss, nothing changed as a result of the crash, et cetera." Aer Lingus Flight 328 is a good example of this - in that incident a plane actually crashed, had coverage for years afterwards pre-internet, and wasn't kept, but Delta Air Lines Flight 89 has been kept three times (I've !voted keep twice, but neither of them were purely policy based) in spite of only having apparently a couple weeks of coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nowdays, I cannot understand how normalised plane crashes are being. I have to deal with two nominated pages so far (the second one is KLM Flight 1204, but this one has a fair number of reasons to be deleted or to be a draft). This really need to be discuss like can anybody sure that the pages we've all been creating really noticeable? Are every fatal crashes really noticeable (like accident in aviation is too common right now). Did the crash got back its recognition after the report. This really needs explanation. Ohok12 (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see some inconsistency in non-fatal accidents having articles but for this accident there has not been any sustain coverage since December. I know there is no report for any new site to write about, but they could do some retrospective reporting by interviewing a passenger or just reflecting back on it. This was reported on for literally two days. Zaptain United (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that more of WP:NEVENT being inconsistently applied rather than the guideline being ambiguous? For both of these AfDs, applying WP:NEVENT would have resulted in different closes (AL328: redirect to keep; DL89: keep to delete/redirect). I agree that the outcome of the event certainly plays a part in whether or not an article is kept (even though some outcomes are contrary to what guidelines say). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aviationwikiflight: Isn't it both? Isn't it being incorrectly applied because of the ambiguity? I don't think WP:NEVENT is actually ambiguous, but it is meant to cover all events everywhere, and is of less use when we start digging into why an aviation incident occurred. I myself generally go by the sourcing unless there's obvious reasons otherwise (for instance, fatal passenger aviation incidents in the Soviet Union.) SportingFlyer T·C 11:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halifax Stanfield International Airport#Accidents and incidents, as is standard for relatively minor incidents such as this that do not have lasting coverage. This is, in my opinion, a good alternative for deletion, as it does allow for the restoration of the page if there is additional information or coverage in the future. nf utvol (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for still trying to keep this page in some way. Ohok12 (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of this page, I don't disagree with the fact that this incident didn't meet 100% of the Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents, so many experienced editor wants to delete this page. For me:

- Though I do want to keep this page, but if it because of the community good, I agree to delete this page or making it as a draft.

- I'm also an inexperienced editor, which can made many mistakes during the creation.

Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that I want to delete this page:

- The Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents describe very vaguely about notable incident.

- This is an undergoing-investigating case, so we can't sure whether this is really a normal incident or a serious incident.

With that, I think we should create a talk page or a discussion to sort out normal incident and notable incident.
Also, thank you for the contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohok12 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halifax Stanfield International Airport#Accidents and incidents, where this otherwise insufficiently-notable-for-a-standalone-article incident is already properly covered, making a redirect appropriate and desirable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but ok, that's a point Ohok12 (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With this condition, this article will likely be deleted in the coming days. I also understand why this article was nominated for deletion and have more understanding of Wikipedia rules and the function of "draft". I apologize if this has caused any impact on the Wikipedia community, as I have only known these things for a short time. At the same time, I also thank those who have contributed to my articles in the past. I will now convert it to a draft (because I want it to at least reflect my efforts) before this is deleted. Once again, thank you for everyone's contributions to this article.Ohok12 (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you've copied the text of the article to Draft:PAL Airlines Flight 2259. There are several problems with that:
1. Drafts are intended as temporary storage for likely future articles, and will ultimately be deleted if not "promoted" to articles; see WP:DRAFT for details..
2. Copy-and-paste moves do not preserve the edit history of the page, which would be necessary for attribution should you ever attempt to move the text back to mainspace, as explained at WP:ATTREQ.
3. You've preempted the results of this deletion discussion, contrary to WP:DRAFTNO #2.
Copying the text to a page within your userspace would be a better option if you just want to keep a copy of your own "for posterity". Rosbif73 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohok12 You had absolutely no reason to apologise at all! It's ok! You created an article, which is an incredibly hard thing to do as a new Wikipedian and unfortunately it was nominated for deletion because somebody believed it didn't meet certain notability requirements. This is normal!

Rosbif is correct in that you definitely should have waited for the result of this AfD before doing anything. Edit history is very important. Fortunately, as you copied it the original, this version remains. I would recommend following the instructions at WP:HOWTODELETE#Pages you created yourself for the new draft version you have made, this way you can avoid getting into any hot water! 11WB (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys, I am actually bursting into tears because for the trouble I made in KLM Flight 1204, and it was forgived. Also, thanks for the advice. (I used to be cyberbullied when using Discord, that's why I'm really sensitive of being reported) Ohok12 (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't worry! I have notified Liz about the mistake regarding KLM Flight 1204. I am sure this will be sorted and you won't be in any trouble from it! In future, I would really recommend having a look up of some of the procedures around specific areas of Wikipedia, such as here at WP:AfD. It is a steep learning experience, but you'll definitely get the hang of things eventually and you are always welcome to ask for help! 11WB (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a follow-up re the KLM situation. I am unsure whether an administrator is required for the redirect reversion. If this is something a non-admin can do, this would be great to know for future reference (and how to do it also!). 11WB (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No injuries? Not even remotely notable. I am not even sure it merits a mention on the Halifax airport (and/or PAL Airlines) article, but I wouldnt oppose that per se.Metallurgist (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable accident page. No lasting effects. Insillaciv (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of broader significance that would meet WP:LASTING and all sources are from the day of, or immediately after this minor accident, which fails WP:PERSISTENCE. I suppose it is possible that the final report may find something that makes this more notable, and also possible there will be another news spike when it is released, but we don't keep articles based on speculation and crystal balling. An argument could be made to keep the mentions in Halifax airport/PAL Airlines article accidents and incidents sections as a separate discussion. Dfadden (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We already have the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines to determine whether an event should be included in the accidents and incidents section of airport, airline or aircraft articles. As far as I can tell, none of the criteria in those guidelines apply here. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't supposed to be used in AfD discussions. I also can't easily find if it was a hull loss. SportingFlyer T·C 13:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My mention of the AIRCRASH criteria was in response to the suggestion that An argument could be made to keep the mentions in Halifax airport/PAL Airlines article accidents and incidents sections, which is precisely what those criteria are intended for. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the aircraft was subsequently written off, thus the accident resulted in a hull loss. Therefore it would qualify for inclusion in those sections per WP:AIRCRASH. With that said, AIRCRASH is only an essay, not policy. Dfadden (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Head-on engagement

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

Tagged as dubious and in 2009 as unsourced - why do we even need to spend more time thinking about this? Chidgk1 (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. One fact in the article is tagged as dubious. Neither a dubious tag or being unreferenced is a policy-based argument for deletion. Note that WP:V does not require references be present in the article, only that they exist, and as this is not WP:BLP its unreferenced state is not applicable. The nominator fails to advance any policy-based argument for deletion and thus this should be speedy closed per WP:SK3. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one ref on the talk page which is not enough. If other refs exist go ahead and show them Chidgk1 (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only BLPs require that references be in an article. For other topics, WP:V only requires that sources exist. They should be in the article, but a lack of them is not a policy-based reason for deletion. Note that I'm not necessarily saying this shouldn' be deleted for policy-based reasons, but your deletion nomination here fails to advance any and is thus not a valid deletion nomination. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A source exists but do sources exist? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current poor quality of an article on a topic with plenty of available sources is no reason for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying one is plenty or do you have more? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to prove notability. Agletarang (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying one source is enough? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something here? There are no sources in the article, and no one has provided them here yet. There are a few scholarly articles which mention this but I think the search engines now think I'm getting married. What are the best sources here? SportingFlyer T·C 16:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can be sourced.Metallurgist (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be sourced? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'm seeing that it might be difficult to source with unreliable blogs like this. But I also see a few possibilities in Google news. I saved 90 unsourced stubs and articles last month, and have updated almost 600 unsourced tags in the past few weeks alone. So somebody else will have to do the work to rescue this. Bearian (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common term in aviation combat literature. And yes, I'm aware there's only one source currently listed so don't bother pointing it out again. Intothat darkness 19:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So as you say it is a common term it should be easy for you or someone else saying “keep” to add enough cites I guess? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying you couldn't be bothered to do a proper search before nominating it for deletion? Badgering people isn't a good way to make your case. Intothat darkness 11:29, 17 July 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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rakhyut Mid-Air Collision

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

This seems like a normal incident that shouldn't have its own article, per WP:AIRCRASH. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, and Oman. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 17:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tragic accident, but there appears to be no lasting coverage that contributes to notability. Not to mention that this might be the most poorly cited article I've seen short of one with no sources at all (four sources right back to Wikipedia, and one is to an online forum?). nf utvol (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not going to cast a vote on this AfD, but I think it should be noted by those who do that this article was created and nominated for deletion less than 3 hours apart. (This article does have issues with how it's written and referenced regardless.) 11WB (talk) 00:00, 11 July 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.

List of UAV flight controllers

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

Inherently against WP:NOTDIR; see move discussion at Talk:List of UAV flight controllers * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTDIR absolutely applies here, and nothing seems to check the WP:NLIST criteria. nf utvol (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A declined PROD; ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly against WP:NOTDIR, content is unsuitable for a merge. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines v. Crowdstrike

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

We already have an article on the 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption. I don't think that this lawsuit is independently notable. Avgeekamfot (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Aviation, Computing, and United States of America. Avgeekamfot (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is there a sufficient amount of coverage on this topic to merit an independent article? The article looks reasonably well written but we could do with less fragmentation so I would lean merge to 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption absent strong evidence that the present article will continue to grow beyond what the other article can accommodate. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's unclear per nom which notability criteria it fails to meet – if there's sufficient GNG, it should be kept and in this case it seems that the lawsuit independently has been covered in reliable sources in-depth. WeWake (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would also like to suggest keeping the article. I'm the creator of it. I appreciate everyone's input here. I think there's enough coverage to support the topic being a standalone. However, I can also understand the position of merging it with the Delta Air Lines disruption page. I'll continue to improve the topic on whichever page it ends up living. Thanks again for everyone's time on this. Hannahthom7 (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption. I agree with @Caleb Stanford this article seems OK but it's got a lot of overlap and also deals with three different lawsuits - Delta v CS, CS v Delta, and passengers vs CS. The case is still in early proceedings, perhaps if this ends up making some legal precedent it will be worth having a separate page. Oblivy (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption per WP:NOPAGE. The lawsuits form part of a notable event but do not need an article of their own; there is already a lot of overlap with the disruption page. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see more discussion regarding WP:NOPAGE; the overlap seems to be the main argument from those advocating for a merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting per the above relist. The article that is subject to AfD talks about the background for the lawsuit, the tenants of the suit itself, two counter lawsuits, and a contract between the two companies. The background is already included at 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption, creating an overlap, and the contract between the two is hardly relevant unless it's related to the suit itself. The second article has a section on the lawsuit that is lacking, so I believe the information on the different lawsuits can and should be included there. My consensus is to merge and redirect to 2024 Delta Air Lines disruption. Surayeproject3 (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but make sure to copy all the WikiProjects on the talk page. Bearian (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Soviet straight-winged jet fighters

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NLIST, we don't have lists like this for other entities. Unsourced since 2017. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Click on the individual named fighter jets in this one. You will find the sourcing in the individual articles. Please see Category:Russian and Soviet military-related lists and Category:Lists of military aircraft. We have many such lists, that differ in style. The sourcing etc are found in the individual lists, or articles. — Maile (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make it into a category. This was actually interesting enough to arouse my curiosity what it meant, but I think a category would suffice. Metallurgist (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and do not make it into a category. As a list this is not sufficently notable. As a category the intersection of "propulsion+wing configuration" is not a defining intersection. We do not have Category:Straight-wing aircraft and Category:Swept-wing aircraft, and subcategories of those would also be insufficiently defining. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand - While I admit it is lacking as just a list without context, I have actually come across and used this page before while doing research. It was somewhat helpful to me, and I probably wouldn't have found it as just a category. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm glad it was useful, WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a policy-based argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of McDonnell Douglas MD-80 operators

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

Article had only two citations, both of which were unreliable sources per WP:PLANESPOTTERS. Only reason I didn't remove the second citation was because I didn't spot it. So in essence, this list article, which contains details such as numbers of aircraft in operation or formerly in operation, is completely unsourced, with the only assistance for the reader being to go to the linked articles - which doesn't count as sourcing per WP:CIRCULAR Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you also have Airfleets [1], and at least SimpleFlying and BusinessInsider blog posts showing which airlines operate the plane: [2] [3] So it's not really a trivial/NLIST failing topic if we can agree on a proper source. There may be more in my old books in storage as well. SportingFlyer T·C 11:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Airfleets has been in multiple RSNs over the years where it's also been listed as unreliable, as it's basically the same as Planespotters. Simple Flying is a deprecated source, but Business Insider would work. If we can find sources, then obviously there's no problem keeping the article... unfortunately, often it takes an AfD for such action to take place!

And for the record, yes I did make a quick search for sources myself... but as I'm not really an aviation-inclined person, I couldn't find anything substantial. Danners430 (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least three books directly on the planes published at various times, but I can't access their insides. SportingFlyer T·C 12:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we're wanting to source current lists of operators and numbers though we probably need more recent sources Danners430 (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very few operators still fly this plane. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Flying is NOT a reliable source WP:SIMPLEFLYING Protoeus (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needing improvement (i.e. reliable references) is never a reason to delete an article. Fully referencing the list is something that should be achievable. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes opening an AfD is the only way to get an article improved... Like I said above, I've done a search for sources, but haven't been able to find anything substantial. Danners430 (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep We can clearly source American operators from my source search. See [4] [5] We can also source other carriers - I picked two at random and there's lots out there, but nothing that is a clear "slam dunk" (like say the BBC) because this is a niche topic with niche sources. I do not know what is in this book. This looks self-published unfortunately. The problem is we can absolutely source this and it's encyclopedic but there's not going to be one source out there that isn't a niche aviation source... SportingFlyer T·C 10:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; more input on SportingFlyer's most recently-presented sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Absolutely needs better sourcing, but I think there's enough here to establish notability. Worth mentioning that there's a similar list for almost every major commercial aircraft, with sourcing of varying quality...if we get rid of this one then the rest need to be brough to AfD. nf utvol (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation articles proposed for deletion WP:PROD

None