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)

No Commercial Airport at Whenuapai Airbase Party

(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: 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]

2024 Badakhshan Dassault Falcon 10 crash

(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. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Afghanistan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete above reason Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into and create Dassault Falcon 10 Accidents and incidents category. Lolzer3k 17:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I don't think that the accidents or incidents involving the Dassault Falcon 10 are a notable aspect of the aircraft, which might be a reason why the section wasn't created. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 112

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: A search reveals that there exists no (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) 16:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Turkmenistan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recent discussion suggests one of the two sources listed to be generally unreliable. Aviationwikiflight's discussion of the lack of secondary sources, coverage, and impact only reinforce this editor's position. Jtwhetten (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. There seems to be 2 glaring problems here: effects and sources. As for effects, it is well known that the USSR covered up many aviation and aerospace disasters, not to mention Aeroflot planes were crashing what seemed to be every week, so it doesn't seem that important. However, the fact that it is the deadliest passenger aviation crash in Turkmenistan seems relevant enough to me to warrant the page staying. As for sources, the crash is listed on aircrashinfo, a popular aggregate source for plane crashes, and they helpfully list all of their sources where they got the crash info. As it turns out, the 2 sources cited in the article do not pop up in this reference list, so information about this crash must be somewhere in aircrashinfo's references. Thankfully, I found a few that cover this time period and are available in my university's library, so if I get the time I'm more than willing to see if I can find any more relevant information from a real source. If I hit a dead end, it's probably better for this to get deleted. But in the meantime, I'm willing to give it a shot. SouthernDude297 (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt the sources listed would provide significant coverage of the event beyond a mere trivial passing mention. Per WP:GNG, sources should be secondary, meaning that the sources must provide analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. If the sources do, I would be inclined to reconsider the nomination, but for now, you seem to be arguing that currently, the event isn't notable. And just because "Flight ___" was the deadliest in x country doesn't mean it should warrant a stand-alone article, unless it can meet the necessary requirements to have a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Germany mid-air collision

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

Per WP:GNG, barely notabile incident, nearly zero sources can be found about it, even in german. SignorPignolini 20:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am shocked that this even got through, run of the mill incident with zero continued coverage. Lolzer3k 18:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Wiesmoor#History – Coverage of the event does exist, such as [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (and mentioned in a book [8]) but most of them are either from 1989 or are passing mentions, with additionally, the final report also available [9]. This german forum from 2005-2006 has uncovered some very good coverage of the event [10], however I've been unable to find the said sources online. With that being said, there isn't much sustained coverage post-1989 nor in-depth coverage of the event that would make it warrant a stand-alone article, whilst a merge could probably provide a slightly more historical context of the event. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1952 Leningrad mid-air collision

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

per WP:GNG failure to site verifiable sources and lack of secondary sources, as shown before, the soviet union was incredibly secretive and tight lipped about tragedies, especially aviation tragedies, that took place in the soviet union. Lolzer3k 15:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Lolzer3k 15:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. This article is based primarily on what appears on the airdisaster.ru website, which was briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#airdisaster.ru a couple of months ago and generally found to be an unreliable source. I've spent some time trying to find even a brief mention of this accident in reliable sources, and have failed. While Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article, the policy does state that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. I'll also mention that I'm not very comfortable with the fact that the article was created August 13, 2024, yet the citations to the airdisaster.ru website are citing an access date of April 12, 2013. This may be a machine translation of the ru.wikipedia page that does not appropriately give attribution to the original article per WP:HOWTRANS. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: A search reveals that there exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no 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) 15:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. Once suitable sources are found, it can be made a standalone article. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Soviet aviation task force/Notability. Meltdown627 (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 31

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: A search reveals that there exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no 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) 07:11, 16 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) 07:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. There are no independent, reliable sources of information about this crash. The ASN source cites airdisaster.ru as its source of information, airdisaster.ru does not cite any sources itself and has been the topic of a past discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#airdisaster.ru. Most of the currently uncited material in the article is a close paraphrase of the limited information that appears on airdisaster.ru, and the baaa-acro.com source is a WP:SPS. I've spent some time trying to find even a brief mention of this accident in reliable sources, and have failed. While Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article, the policy does state that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. Once suitable sources are found, it can be made a standalone article. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Soviet aviation task force/Notability. Meltdown627 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 34

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no 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) 11:30, 15 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) 11:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1940s or to List of accidents and incidents involving the DC-3 in 1947, since there are nearly zero sources about the accident. SignorPignolini

(talk) 13:43 UTC, 15 September 2024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SignorPignolini (talk • contribs) 13:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. The Soviet Union was notoriously tight-lipped about aviation accidents that occurred in that era, and many domestic accidents were never widely reported. This article is based entirely on what appears on the airdisaster.ru website, which was briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#airdisaster.ru a couple of months ago. I found that discussion by searching for such a discussion, as my gut feeling was already telling me that this isn't a reliable source, and the "sources of information" field on the entry on that site has been left blank. I've spent some time trying to find even a brief mention of this accident in reliable sources, and have failed. While Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article, the policy does state that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1952 Aeroflot Ilyushin Il-12 crash

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no 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) 10:05, 14 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) 10:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. The Soviet Union was notoriously tight-lipped about aviation accidents that occurred in that era, and many domestic accidents were never widely reported. This article is based primarily on what appears on the airdisaster.ru website, which was briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#airdisaster.ru a couple of months ago. I found that discussion by searching for such a discussion, as my gut feeling was already telling me that this isn't a reliable source, and the "sources of information" field on the entry on that site has been left blank. I've spent some time trying to find even a brief mention of this accident in reliable sources, and have failed. While Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article, the policy does state that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. Once suitable sources are found, it can be made a standalone article. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Soviet aviation task force/Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltdown627 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Africa One Antonov An-26 crash

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor incident, gear collapses are common, also no major injuries or fatalities that add notability to it. Very few sources cover it, and the article is poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SignorPignolini (talk • contribs) 17:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. A search yields no news coverage, no significant coverage, no in-depth coverage and no secondary sources. Perhaps the fact that it did result in some lasting effects could make it notable, as noted in the article, but other than that, it practically fails every other policy and guideline as noted above and I don't think this would justify a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian Airlines Flight 6936

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

Failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE incident seems to have had a fairly short news cycle, additionally no fatalities and only a total loss of the plane. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Iran. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A total loss of an aircraft is a significant event and I don't think accident articles need to be deleted just because there were no fatalities. Many aircraft accidents have a "fairly short news cycle" and once a final investigation report has been issued, they usually disappear altogether. Articles about aircraft accidents are useful as they elucidate what the causes were. This one could easily have ended with hundreds dead. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment while i do support some of your causes, just because it could've left hundreds dead doesnt mean it should justify as an article. At the least this should be merged, near tragedy doesnt warrant nor neccesitate an article, the accident is just a simple hull loss wrapped into a near tragedy. Thanks for your time. Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123 Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fully understand the pertinence of not imagining what coulda, woulda, shoulda happened. But the improvement of aviation safety relies on the investigation and analysis of all accidents and incidents. I realise Wikipedia is not an aircraft safety site, but I wanted to explain my perspective here. I'm not sure how this article could be successfully merged without losing a lot of relevant info. Let's see what other editors say. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a serious enough crash, with the aircraft being judged destroyed, and the page and event is well sourced. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant accident that resulted in a hull loss and injuries, not a simple runway overrun. SignorPignolini (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:EVENTCRIT: Per criterion #4 of the event criteria, "routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." There isn't much that would give this event enduring significance. There is no continued nor in-depth coverage since news coverage either happened in the aftermath of the accident or after the release of the final report, with most news coverage in persian rehashing what the Civil Aviation Authority of Iran wrote in its final report. None of the sources are secondary, in nature, since none of them contain "analysis, evaluation or interpretation", with the sources being primary. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airnav.com

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

I can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV and there is no clear reason why this is a notable website. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article itself has no reference. I cannot find any sources talk about it, only WP:PASSINGMENTIONS Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is very heavily cited (see Google books, Google scholar). There is a page of coverage here and a paragraph of coverage here. I imagine there is more so I suggest participants take a good look at Google books for significant coverage. C F A 💬 02:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a fixed Google books link. tedder (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, while CFA didn't cast a "vote" in this discussion, they have brought sources to the discussion which should be reviewed. Soft deletion doesn't seem appropriate as deletion is no longer "uncontroversial".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's hardly more than a passing mention to be found (who runs it? etc), but wow, the quantity of mentions in articles, journals, and websites is - in this case - informative. tedder (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Despite the current article lacking in form and substance, that in itself does not merit deletion if the subject (i.e. the website itself) is notable for its impact—see WP:WEB and the sources that CFA and Tedder linked. With enough time and willing editors, this article could be improved beyond a stub. Jtwhetten (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article itself may not be anything special, but the website is insanely useful for us who are in aviation, including those of us who write about airports, especially smaller general aviation airports. SouthernDude297 (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree wholeheartedly. Hard to square that against keeping NPOV but there is really no substitute for this site when it comes to general aviation. --Jtwhetten^(talk) 22:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you think the subject is important but have you found sources that provide SIGCOV that can establish notability? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT: Whilst there may be a plethora of sources mentioning Airnav.com, none of them provide significant coverage of the topic itself with only passing mentions of the subject existing and no secondary sources existing. Just because it may be considered "important" by some does not mean that the subject is notable in itself. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated opinion --- For benefit of the discussion (as well as my own interest in the process here) I scratched out a source assessment table. Currently this only considers the references that exist in the article as most others that I can find are only WP:PASSINGMENTIONS.

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Jtwhetten
Merry, John A. (2001). Aviation Internet Directory: A Guide to the 500 Best Web Sites. McGraw-Hill Professional. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-07-137216-9.	Inclusion in a "top 500" list likely does not constitute significant coverage.	✘ No
Levitt, Carole A.; Mark E. Rosch (2006). The Lawyer's Guide to Fact Finding on the Internet. American Bar Association. p. 690. ISBN 978-1-59031-671-9.	~ Does a summary of the website, its primary uses, benefits, and the value it provides constitute significant coverage?	~ Partial
Silver, H. Ward (2005). Two-Way Radios & Scanners for Dummies. For Dummies. p. 182. ISBN 978-0-7645-9582-0.	~ Does a summary of the website, its primary uses, benefits, and the value it provides constitute significant coverage?	~ Partial
https://web.archive.org/web/20121105213703/http://aeronav.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=aeronav%2Fapplications%2Fd_afd	The source does not mention the subject.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110228043325/http://www.faa.gov/air%5Ftraffic/flight%5Finfo/aeronav/productcatalog/supplementalcharts/airportdirectory/	The source does not mention the subject.	✘ 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}}.

Given that these "partially significant" sources are mostly summaries, it may better serve the community if this subject is integrated into the articles linked in the second sentence of this article (in the form of "this information is aggregated and freely available at AirNav.com"). I believe this satisfies GNG as well as WP:NOPAGE while keeping this subject listed on WP. I am changing my opinion to Delete. My comment above has been struck. Thanks to all for the discussion. --Jtwhetten^(talk) 14:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]