Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation

WP:DELAV

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Aviation Articles for Deletion (WP:AFD)

Aeroflot Flight 11

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". Other than databases (tertiary sources), there exists no reliable secondary sources that provide significant in-depth and sustained continued coverage of the event, with the occurrence having no 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 article from CHITA.ru was the only piece of non-tertiary coverage that I could find, but as stated before, it doesn't provide significant nor in-depth coverage of the event. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a commercial flight with a number of fatalities it surely meets notability criteria. I don't really see what the problem with the sources is either.TheLongTone (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it was a fatal commercial flight doesn't mean it's automatically notable. This sort of argument is not enshrined in any notability guideline. As stated above, WP:GNG requires that sources be secondary. Databases (including those cited in the article) are considered tertiary sources and therefore do not contribute to notability. It's been discussed a few times at AfD, WP:RS/N and WT:AV and the general consensus was that Airdisaster.ru isn't reliable. Same goes for Russianplanes.net, which was also discussed at WP:RS/N Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are times where strict interpretations of WP:GNG don't make sense, and this is clearly one of them. This was a major aviation accident in the Soviet Union, and while I'm not easily able to find modern sources, and it may even be hard to find sources at the time, this is a detailed referenced article and is clearly an article that you would want to have in a set of articles about aviation disasters in 1957. Even though that's a little bit of an WP:IAR vote, I feel strongly enough to say that deleting this would clearly make Wikipedia worse. SportingFlyer T·C 18:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Twenty-seven fatalities in an airliner crash isn't notable??? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Jazirah Aviation crash

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

Unnotable aviation accident. Although a tragic one, this is a routine accident. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL general aviation accident. Tragic, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sufficiently covered at Al Jazeirah Airport, no issue with merging any information here to that article before deletion (but there really is too much detail here per concerns above re: WP:NOTMEMORIAL). I'd have voted redirect as an ATD, but really can't see why anyone would search '2024 Jazirah Aviation Crash'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:RUNOFTHEMILL article. Protoeus (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete I am confused how this even got past article creations notability standards. Wikipedia:NOTNEWS Wikipedia:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE apply here for deletion. Lolzer3k 20:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL: just another small aircraft crash. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This accident is related to general aviation, and just because it crashed does not mean it should have its own Wikipedia article. These kinds of accidents are run-of-the-mill aviation accidents. See WP:AIRCRASH. ThisGuy (talk to me // contributions) 12:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:AIRCRASH, This essay includes generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about airports, airlines and aircraft type articles. By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not. [...] Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:AIRCRASH Nightmares26 (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Fullerton plane crash

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:GNG. Just because it was the first accident in 2025, doesn’t mean it’s notable. (Update: It isn’t even [first 2025 crash) Protoeus (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention this is a general aviation accident. Those kind of accidents are rarely notable. (see WP:AIRCRASH) ThisGuy (talk to me // contributions) 23:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep although a normal small aircraft crash, it crashed into a warehouse with over 200 people inside. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:35, 7 January 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 January 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Small plane crashes like this happen almost everyday and, although tragic, it is unnotable and routine. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention it isn't even the deadliest plane crash of 2025 now... (it's been surpassed by another plane crash that killed three people)^[1] ThisGuy (talk to me // contributions) 12:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep seems somewhat notable per the amount of injuries and possible failure onboard the plane, as we saw with Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 minor accidents like this may expose major problems, i would hold off from deleting this until a preliminary report is released to level out if this is notable or not. Lolzer3k 07:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems somewhat notable, I mean considering the casualties and response Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s pretty routine to have its own article, we don’t have articles on every crash that only killed 1/2 people. Protoeus (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as per Thehistorianisaac TYPEINFO (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Protoeus (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need to know why this article should be kept, because you didn't give a reason. (talking to TypeInfo) ThisGuy (talk to me // contributions) 15:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. Routine kit plane accident with no indication that it might lead to policy changes. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Looking through Google I see 5 articles from reputable sources for "Fullerton Plane Crash". Meets WP:GNG. guninvalid (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:AIRCRASH specifically says that it should not be used for discussion in AfD. guninvalid (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jay D. Easy (t) 12:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: general aviation / light aircraft accidents almost always fail WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. This one is no different: there's no reason to expect any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle, nor any WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep General aviation incidents often aren't notable, and this was probably created too soon, but the manner of the accident (crashing into a populated warehouse in a major population centre) suggests this could receive indeed receive WP:LASTING coverage. I'd also much prefer draftification to deletion, since the only thing this is lacking at the moment is WP:LASTING coverage, which could come at any time. SportingFlyer T·C 18:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The major problem with citing WP:LASTING is we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. While I do slightly favor keeping, I'm okay with moving this to Drafts until lasting coverage can be established. guninvalid (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this is simply a classic "is this a news item or is this enough for an article" AfD and right now it's just not yet clear. SportingFlyer T·C 20:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These kinds of articles should probably go through AfC first as I see it. But it is how it is. guninvalid (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RealFlight

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

Fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find coverage other than from hobbyist blogs. FlightGear is a potential redirect target, as the article says it's a commercial rebranding of that software, but RealFlight is not mentioned at the target. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Aviation, and Software. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources that exist in the article are self-published and thus fails WP:GNG. Protoeus (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight 3830

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. An incident while the aircraft is taxiing after maintenance with no passengers on board is not notable. The aircraft was not in revenue service at the time, so assigning a flight number is improper. I can not find significant coverage of this incident, with the only WP:RS being this brief accident report. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article contradicts itself too. If the aircraft was written off (hull loss) I doubt it carried 319 passengers later... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boeing 747 hull losses#2000s. Article itself is non-notable and doesn't meet WP:GNG, but the incident itself is mentioned on the aforementioned page with a flight number (not-sure exactly where its from, but it does show up elsewhere online). Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage, no lasting effects. I would also (weakly) oppose a redirect as the mention of a flight number makes no sense and is unsourced. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a stub, and another problem is that it doesn't cite any sources for whatever reason... not to mention the topic of the article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. TG-ARTICLE Well, if you want to talk to me, then why don't you click this button? There's also my contributions. 14:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article has no sources and contains unverified claims, so should either be draftified or deleted; redirecting doesn't make sense in this case, because the flight number is not valid (as multiple editors have pointed out). (The accident report found by the nominator does not fully verify the claims made in the article either.) I was about to !vote delete but subsequently found a few articles that suggest that there is more to the story of this 2001 incident, as discussed in this 2023 article in Simple Flying magazine titled "The Boeing 747-300 That Was Written Off After Taxiing Into A Ditch"; the 2001 Arab News articles about the incident including "Saudia plane skids into monsoon drain" and "Malaysia Firm Blamed for Saudia Mishap". Avia Magazine (2014) may also provide a few additional facts, though this incident was mentioned as one of 18 instances in which aircraft were lost by Saudia. But perhaps the facts gleaned from these sources could be merged into Boeing 747 hull losses#2000s as suggested above. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. No sources cited and no significant coverage. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 06:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously an WP:MILL case, and lacks any sources, and it already got an WP:SNOW falling. Protoeus (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/469815

[1] ttps://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/469815

[1]