Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation

Points of interest related to Aviation on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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.

Purge page cache

watch

1962 Aral Sea Li-2 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)

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, 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. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Kazakhstan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete per amount of fatalities and GNG errors listed above, its a poorly constructed article with alot of dead links and only two sources referenced. Lolzer3k 14:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Surgut mid-air collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, 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. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Mid-air collision Yet another major aviation incident that russia was completely tight lipped about, sadly, even though its tragic, due to Russia's secrecy it cant warrant an article. if this took place anywhere else it would stand as an article itself. Lolzer3k 14:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Air West Coast (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)

Cannot find a single ref that goes towards notability. I originally BLAR'd it to the article of the group that ran it, as it is mentioned there with a brief description. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This airline was unique it was the first airline to operate the Dornier 228 in NZ. Plus they were the first airline to offer a scheduled service from Greymouth to Wellington. The history of would be lost if deleted as it's useful resource for research on former airlines of New Zealand. There is a long list of defunct airlines on the Template which will get destroyed if they are to be deleted one by one. A lot of work has been put in to create all of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Airlines_of_New_Zealand

That is why these should be retrained on Wikipedia. CHCBOY (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The history will not be lost if it is restored to a redirect, which I have no opposition to. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the redirect before and that's what it was only the article was gone completely. CHCBOY (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @CHCBOY, the mere fact that an airline was the first operator of <insert type of aircraft> or the first to serve <name of destination> is not adequate to establish notability if quality WP:SECONDARY sources do not exist. Carguychris (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: this airline seems like it should have some notability, but as it stands, it fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH due to a lack of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources excluding WP:ROTM mentions in aviation-related databases and travel websites. Perhaps some better sources will emerge and I will change my mind. Carguychris (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was able to find sources verifying it exists, but nothing to establish notability. The most in-depth piece I see is one from a blog which wouldn't met WP:ORGCRIT. I have no opinion on merge or redirect but always happy with an WP:ATD. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 120 (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)

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Uzbekistan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s. Accident is sufficiently covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Tehran airport collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist on the event with no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the crash. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Iran. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Maybe you are in a region where access to the BBC is blocked: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/628749.stm Thincat (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I do have access to the BBC but as noted above, these sources aren't secondary due to there being no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't know the source of some of the BBC's information: I doubt whether they had a reporter on the spot. Where they tell us what Mazaheri said they are giving us his secondary account surely? But, apart from the secondary aspect, the event may well not be too notable. I found the other claims in your nomination more persuasive. Thincat (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Merge into Runway Incursion and Tehran Airport Accidents and incidents sufficently covered there. Notable but doesnt warrant its own article as shown by nom @Aviationwikiflight Lolzer3k 18:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, * ground collision there is no accident description there, needs to be created. Lolzer3k 18:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight F-637 (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)

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1980s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 227 (1969) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. Was not able to find any sources for the entire flight. Although it does meet WP:PLANECRASH, that isn't a formal guideline or notability policy. SirMemeGod  12:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. SirMemeGod  12:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and/or no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1960s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Weak Keep per amount of fatalities, i feel better sources can be still found about this accident. I'm saddened to see so many notable Aeroflot incidents have to go, but i feel this could be saved. @Sir MemeGod Lolzer3k 17:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it did have fatalities, the only source we even have to back up the fatalities is an archived Russian site, which I'm not even sure is reliable. As stated, WP:PLANECRASH doesn't apply here, as it isn't a deletion policy. SirMemeGod  17:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the Aeroflot accidents and incidents page. This was an unattributed translation of an ruWiki article, so they don't have any additional sources. Even if this did meet the GNG (I'm assuming the sources would mostly be Russian-language 1960s era stuff), I concur with Meltdown627 that coverage is not so sufficient as to merit a standalone page. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 227 (1956) (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)

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Georgia (country). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:GNG, nomination and potentially WP:HOAX (this may very well have happened). I can't find any significant coverage of the flight, when looking up "Aeroflot Flight 227" I actually came upon a "Fake plane crash" Fandom page, and that's the extent of what I found. SirMemeGod  12:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crash is not a hoax, it did happen. It is mentioned at ASN and B3A. Meltdown627 (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have links to those? It would be useful to see what info they have. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevermind, found the link on the list article Mrfoogles (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s. Incident is sufficently covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to previously mentioned article; sufficiently covered and attributed to a reliable source. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Commercial Airport at Whenuapai Airbase Party (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)

Political party that existed for less than a year and advocated for a single issue. Only limited coverage, and it all appears to be from 2008, except for a single article about "the stranger parties of NZ's past and present" from 2018. This seems similar to how political candidates may receive limited coverage during an elecetion but are not considered notable. The article creator has reverted an attempt to redirect this page to Whenuapai#Reverting to Military Aerodrome and recent developments. – notwally (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – notwally (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Single-issue_politics#Oceania List_of_political_parties_in_New_Zealand#Parties_that_never_held_seats: I couldn't find articles showing lasting impact other than an article that justifiably says their lasting impact is the absence of a commercial airport there Oblivy (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_political_parties_in_New_Zealand#Parties_that_never_held_seats - basically one guy who got fewer than 300 votes the one time he stood for election. it is an idiosyncrasy of NZ politics that anyone who can scrape up a deposit can say they are a party even if their unregistered "party" is basically a laptop and a printer. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of political parties. I feel the inclusion anywhere else would be undue given how little there is about it. Whilst the Whenuapai air base has been a recurring topic in NZ politics, this party had no impact on it and there is an IP edit that suggests the founder of the party (and it's only member) doesn't want to be associated with it anymore. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daveosaurus and Traumnovelle, I notice the section on that list specifically notes that it should be for notable parties. I would expect a non-notable party be ineligible for inclusion? Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice that. Many of those parties listed are not notable by Wikipedia's standards. If there is no suitable place to redirect/mention it at then deletion would be best. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NCAaWAP seems notable enough for a list of unsuccessful parties, particularly since they've been outrageously successful in preventing that airport being built! If consensus firms around the parties list, then I'll change my proposed redirect target. Oblivy (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is jocular about it. The party itself really had no impact. The commercial airport at Whenuapai has always been a terrible proposal unlikely to go through (estimated to cost around a billion just to move the military operations and other reasons relating to national defence that I can't mention on Wikipedia). Traumnovelle (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my attempt at jocularity. I'm happy to follow the consensus on redirect target, waiting to see if any other views emerge Oblivy (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is such a nothingburger I really don't think it even qualifies for merging. Maybe a merge to the single-issue politics page as per previous comment could make sense, but this is such a tiny thing I think it would be undue there. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Single person single issue party. Was never registered to contest elections and only the founder contested a seat under that tikcet (without success). Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have three different Redirect/Merge target articles being suggested here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not even notable enough to go on a list of failed parties - given that it was never actually a registered party, just a name the one dude gave himself to look better on a ballot form. Absurdum4242 (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Does it really matter if it's a non-registered party? Sure, there's this which says that at the time it was an unregistered party name. But we have the NZ Herald saying it's a party[1] and this from the government registering the logo[2]. In my view, the name is verifiable and that should be the end of it. Notability is lacking which is why I support merge. Oblivy (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is when one of the other voting suggestions is “redirect to a list of parties” - there is an actual process to forming a political party in NZ, with steps and criteria to follow, none of which he managed to achieve. It’s like calling a lemonade stand your kids make a “company” because they drew a logo on the front - unless they legally incorporate, not a company. Don’t register as a party, not a party. Not a party, can’t be listed on a list of parties. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on the information that this organization appears to be a single person who never registered it as a political party, if the organization is not notable, then I do not think the redirects to "Single-issue politics" or "List of political parties in New Zealand" would be appropriate. While the redirect I suggested to Whenuapai may be acceptable as there are a few mentions in newspapers, given the discussion since I filed this AfD, that is probably excessive as well. I now think simply deleting is the most appropriate. – notwally (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The electoral commission registered their logo and listed it on a report called "REGISTER OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND LOGOS". What you say may make intuitive sense to you, but disregarding secondary sources in favor of our own opinions is OR. Oblivy (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]