Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Aviation|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Aviation. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Aviation Articles for Deletion (WP:AFD)

edit

Cham Wings Airlines Flight 781

edit
Cham Wings Airlines Flight 781 (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 covering an incident where a scheduled airline departed the runway at Muscat International Airport after landing. No injuries or substantial damage to the aircraft. The subject does not meet WP:NEVENT standards requiring lasting significant coverage in reliable sources, and no lasting impact or changes to procedures have been identified.

I originally redirected this article to Muscat International Airport#Accidents and incidents as a WP:ATD, however the creator reverted the change. After further reviewing the sourcing though, I don't think this incident even meets the mark for inclusion in the airport page. nf utvol (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vipingo Airport

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

No evidence of passing WP:GNG for this private airport in Kenya. The article appears to be marketing for a related real estate development served by the private airstrip. No inline citations, and external links lead to the airport's affiliated development, databases ([1], [2]), a primary source map on the spam blacklist, and a permanently dead link. Per WP:NAIRPORT, Private airports tend not to be notable on their own, and airports are required to pass GNG, which this one doesn't based on the article and my BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1986 Indian Air Force An-32 disappearance

edit
1986 Indian Air Force An-32 disappearance (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 is not notable WP:Notability because it lacks sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources WP:Reliable sources. Only one source is functional, and the other is dead (404). Therefore, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for events and should be considered for deletion. Yousuf31 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is sustain coverage of this disappearance after 1986. We can add the sustain coverage to the article. Here are some sources:

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/indian-air-force-aircraft-missing-indian-ocean-9606370/

https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/third-indian-air-force-antonov-an-32-aircraft-disappeared-in-last-33-years/14494/

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/missing-iaf-plane-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-an-32-aircraft-331016-2016-07-24

https://www.livefistdefence.com/the-lost-the-found-a-tale-of-two-indian-antonovs/

https://www.thequint.com/news/india/previous-incidents-of-an-32-goes-missing

https://www.firstpost.com/india/missing-iaf-aircraft-brings-back-memories-of-2016-1986-incidents-when-an-32-wreckage-was-never-found-age-old-fleet-awaits-overhauling-6751171.htm Zaptain United (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the other source in the article was in 2014 so that is a secondary source. There are more secondary sources talking about the disappearance years after 1986 than when it first disappeared. Zaptain United (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian Express article goes into great detail on this disappearance in 2024 despite no investigation ever being conducted on this disappearance or any long-term search.  Zaptain United (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
      ✔ Yes
  Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#fighterjetsworld.com. ✘ No
      Only briefly mentioned. ✘ No
  Only a short mention. ✘ No
      Short paragraph that doesn’t go into further details other than a retelling of the disappearance. ✘ No
      Short mention of the disappearance. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

We have one notability-establishing source, but per WP:GNG, we need multiple reliable independent sources that provide significant coverage of the event, and as of yet, there’s only one. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP. Given other sources found. I can add the following 2
* the incident is mentioned in a list here https://thefederal.com/category/states/west/gujarat/gujarat-7-major-air-crashes-ahmedabad-boeing-accident-191620 .
* Also in this book https://www.google.se/books/edition/Without_a_Trace_1970_2016/UBOWDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=1986,+an+Antonov+An-32&pg=PT165&printsec=frontcover Dualpendel (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those establish notability. Wikipedia prefers reliable and secondary sources with editorial oversight. Yousuf31 (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aerolíneas Argentinas Flight 342

edit
Aerolíneas Argentinas Flight 342 (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)

There is unfortunately very little sourcing available on this event. This event is simply a plane that was at a short-term risk of crashing into an antenna, corrected itself and then landed safely - all of which was apparently caused by a miscommunication during a storm. With no fatalities or injuries, I just don't feel this incident is notable. The only thing I do find interesting is that this happened at John F. Kennedy International Airport, which as we know quite well is a high-risk airport to land at even without bad weather. Outside of this being a near-miss precursor to Avianca Flight 052 and the recent Potomac crash, I feel this article could be merged or redirected to List of accidents and incidents at John F. Kennedy International Airport. 11WB (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This event has sustain coverage pass 1981 with a book mentioning the incident in 1988 and article talking about the event 44 years later in 2025.
  • https://www.google.com/books/edition/Terror_in_the_Skies/erUrAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=
  • https://www.aviacionline.com/a-44-anos-de-la-noche-en-la-que-un-boeing-707-de-aerolineas-argentinas-casi-choca-el-world-trade-center Zaptain United (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I suspect 'Terror in the Skies' will likely only have a trivial mention of the incident as it is 'The Inside Story of the World's Worst Air Crashes'. As this occurrence didn't result in a crash, there likely isn't much in this publication covering it. If you have a screenshot I would be interested in seeing it to determine how much content this book has on the incident. Your second reference to Aviacionline is likely reliable, however it appears everything in the Wikipedia article itself is also written on that source. Verifiability is questionable. I am not convinced currently that this incident is notable. 11WB (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The sourcing isn't exactly what I'd call stellar, but I do think that it passes the bare minimum. It'd probably better be served as section somewhere else, but following the letter of the policy this does seem to squeak by.nf utvol (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Weak Merge per nom. I don't see how an incident where an airliner came within 5 miles of a building aerial and was successfully diverted by ATC is even remotely notable. I was intrigued by the two sources provided by Zaptain United, though. While the aviacionline article is interesting, I am having a hard time using it for notability. A quick perusal of that site reveals that all articles are written by two people, and it appears to operate more like a self-published blog than a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability. The article itself is nothing more than a breakdown of a news report on the subject from the time of the incident. The book...well, it does have a chapter dedicated to this incident (it can be found on Archive.org here. However, the book itself is a highly sensationalized newspaper-stand paperback that covers air disasters of the late 1970s and 1980s; it's hardly an academic treatment of the subject and is, at best, poorly edited (you'll note the word "collission [sic]" in the table of contents). That being said, it is a published book, albeit a low quality one, that does dedicate substantial coverage to the incident. nf utvol (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. The Aviacionline source appears to fail verifiability. I will have a look at the chapter you linked, thank you for providing this! 11WB (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per nom. I tend to agree with WP:AIRCRASH and this event just doesn't seem notable enough in terms of that essay or WP:GNG.Ryan shell (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll go with merge even though I think this could just as well be deleted as too minor to bother with. But with a couple of merge suggestions, closers will seize on those no matter what. ANd merge isn't terrible as an outcome. Mangoe (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed page doesn't actually have the incident listed, so merge is the best ATD there is currently. 11WB (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as an Alternative for Deletion, though I think a near miss on crashing on one of the most important buildings of history, could be notable as a section, I can rarely find something else that merits a stand-alone article. Protoeus (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A minor incident, and not a ten out of ten in terms of notability, but it's clear just looking at the sources in the article that there was WP:SUSTAINED significant coverage of the event. I can also confirm the writer who wrote the aviacionline article won an award for their journalism in 2023, so I don't see any real reason to discount that source. SportingFlyer T·C 10:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With only one entry in a 1988 book and one questionable source from this year, I don't think this incident qualifies as having sustained coverage. 11WB (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I disagree. As I said it's not the most notable incident, but it meets our guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded below after the new references were provided. There is continued coverage, however it is basically only one per decade and the sources themselves are either trivial mentions, self-published, sensationalised or not reliable. 11WB (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I found these two sources, with the first being contemporary (published ~2 weeks after the incident). Any thoughts?
    • Johnson, Bob (9 March 1981). "System Saves World Trade Center". Computerworld. Vol. 15, no. 10. p. 2. Retrieved 22 August 2025 – via Google Books.
    • Glenz, James; Lipton, Eric (1 August 2004). City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center. Times Books. ISBN 978-0805076912.

      It happened on a cloudy night in February 1981, when the pilot of an Aerolineas Argentinas Boeing 707, approaching New York on his way to John F. Kennedy Airport, misunderstood the air traffic controller and descended to a dangerously low altitude. The plane, headed directly toward the north tower, was already two hundred feet below its television mast and still descending. It was less than ninety seconds from impact. "Climb, climb immediately," the pilot was ordered by an alert air traffic controller named Donald Zimmerman, who was so shaken by the near collision that he went on traumatic-injury leave afterward. History is swept away so quickly in New York by the next day's news, and the next, and the next, that none of the old debates had any influence on how the trade center was seen in the wake of the Boeing 707 incident. Instead, the flush finances and newfound cultural acceptance of the towers colored the way they were seen among city leaders.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this more evidence for keeping the article since we now have three secondary sources that talked about this incident. Sure no one came close to dying but there has been sustain coverage since it happened more than 40 years ago. Zaptain United (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware if these are just trivial mentions or not. As for sustained coverage, the 2004 publication strengthens that point, however there still isn't much. Other editors who have !voted to merge have chosen that as an WP:ATD. I believe the best outcome for this article would be a merge to the JFK airport list of incidents. 11WB (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This incident didn't happen at JFK, though, and every single incident on the JFK list happened either on airport property or on final approach, apart from the TWA flight and Egyptair flight which arguably shouldn't be on the list. SportingFlyer T·C 22:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This incident happened on approach to JFK. The consensus for what should or shouldn't be included in the incidents list article needs to take place on that talk page. This AfD is about Flight 342 specifically. 11WB (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NEVENT per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DIVERSE. A merge may be preferable in terms of how we editorially choose to cover this topic. However, as it isn't a necessary option (ie deletion isn't a valid option so we don't have to pick an alternative), that should be decided at a WP:MERGEPROP discussion after this AFD closes.4meter4 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For continued coverage, this incident has a sensationalised chapter in a 1988 publication, a trivial mention in a 2004 publication, and as we established here, the 2025 article is a self-published source. The continued coverage is extremely weak. This incident fails WP:DIVERSE from the first sentence, 'Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable.' This incident did not have significant national or international coverage outside of a few reports at the time (such as this one). Continued coverage and diversity of sources (and sensationalism) all come under WP:NEVENT, which this incident either doesn't qualify at all, barely meets or violates. From this, I would say this incident does not meet NEVENT. Merging the article is the best ATD there is currently, failing other sources being found. 11WB (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've read your opinion above. Stop WP:BLUDGEONING the process by commenting after every person who doesn't share your point of view.4meter4 (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise @4meter4, you're right. I thought my replies were mostly related to sourcing but I see that how I've repeatedly replied to every participant and analysed specific policies is unhelpful and bludgeons the process. I'll do as you have said and won't leave any more messages on this AfD. Thank you for calling out this behaviour. 11WB (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is divided between Keeping the article and a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks to me the sources in the article and given in this AFD are sufficient for notability. The Terror in the Skies book has far more than a "trivial mention" of this incident: most of chapter 13 describes matters in detail:[3] The book is accessible online and incorrect speculation about its contents is unhelpful. The article (translated from Spanish Wikipedia) looks worthwhile in itself. I found a second New York Times article: McQuiston, John (March 1, 1981). "Air Controller in 'near miss' is still feeling shock". New York Times. (Originally posted 09:48 24 August 2025 without signature). Thincat (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meeting all aspects of WP:NEVENT with coverage in reliable independent sources. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Upon reading the above comments, I have decided to withdraw my nomination for merge and abstain from this AfD. I would normally have closed this AfD as speedy keep, however due to outstanding merge votes from before the relist, I am unable to do so. I didn't help this AfD as @4meter4 rightfully called out above. I wish to apologise again for my conduct here. Thank you to everyone who has participated in this AfD. 11WB (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Caribbean Airways

edit
British Caribbean Airways (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 been tagged as needing more sources since April 2013; single reference that was there is deprecated under WP:PLANESPOTTERS Danners430 tweaks made 15:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Given @Greenleader(2)'s findings I would say keep.
Dualpendel (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 San Fernando Airport Bombardier Challenger 300 crash

edit
2024 San Fernando Airport Bombardier Challenger 300 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. 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. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more consideration of the late redirect suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment of the Belgian Air Component

edit
Equipment of the Belgian Air Component (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)

There are databases, but are there any reliable sources treating these as a group? Does anyone really care that the Belgian Air Component has some Ford Transits, a Lamborghini tractor, an autopump, and so on? Not a notable subject. Fram (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Europe is investing massively in defence at the moment, yes, many people are interested.
And why do you care about one existing database? The reality is more complex, and I did the work to centralise from existing data.
And if you're not interested about it, don't read it ! This kind of page exists for many air forces in the world. Fabrice Ram (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabrice Ram it does not follow the criteria. Why would we keep it? We want Wikipedia to be as reliable as possible. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 17:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a !vote, but there are dozens of articles in Category:Lists of armies (air forces) equipment and Category:Lists of armies (land forces) equipment. This list can potentially be treated as a split from Belgian Air Component. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow a review of Moritoriko's improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation articles proposed for deletion WP:PROD

edit
  • None
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Aviation&oldid=1307914607"