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)

Ozone Peak

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

No sources of notability in article or available on the web. It mostly lists facts from a table in a catalog. See WP:NOTCATALOG Gumgl (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating a bundle of 107 articles for deletion. These were all created by one user in late 2016 with the same format. The only source in all the articles beyond the subjects' manufacturer's listing page is World Directory of Leisure Aviation 2003-04. This seems to clearly go against the WP:DIRECTORY policy. I fly paragliders and the lifespan of a model is at most 10 years after its production/release although this upper bound is very rare. The vast majority cease to be used after ~6 years for safety concerns (aging of the fabric). Therefore at the time of creation, all the data was about models at least 13 years in the past, and thus obsolete and long forgotten. None of the models listed below have any notoriety nor any relevance today in an industry/sport with dozens of brands each releasing multiple models every year. Recent models might actually have a web presence with reviews and news articles on the Internet, but none of the models below do as they largely predate the popularization of the Internet.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I spot-checked two (Trekking Carver, Windtech Coral) which had nothing close to notability in a search, though I did find a list of Trekking aircraft. I'm loathe to !vote delete on all of these, though, without reviewing them, which is the problem with these bulk nominations. SportingFlyer T·C 22:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just added 6 more from Gradient. Note that this list is not exhaustive, there would be about as many articles of paramotors and another equal amount about hang gliders that are in the same situation but since I am more familiar with paragliders I decided to start there. Gumgl (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Atlantic Flight 024

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

Minor aviation incident, no serious injuries or fatalities, not a hull loss, no impact on aviation regulations or the air transportation system generally; in summary, no WP:LASTING impact. The incident can be adequately discussed in the Heathrow Airport and Airbus A340 articles (perhaps tellingly, there is no mention of the incident in either article as I write this). Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is a clear incident with wounded people. The Banner talk 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:The Banner, can you expand a bit beyond direct impacts, here injuries sustained plus damage both to the vessel and to Heathrow Airport? gidonb (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine airline mechanical incident that resulted in no deaths or serious injuries, plus WP:NOTNEWS. "Wounded people" is certainly not a viable rationale for keeping the article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:PERSISTENCE, for example in: [1.] A Sociology of Commercial Flight Crew, By Bennett Simon, 2016 (originally 2006), Publisher: Taylor & Francis. [2.] The Virgin Way: Everything I Know About Leadership, By Richard Branson, 2014. Publisher: Penguin. [3.] Virgin Atlantic, By John Balmforth, 2009. Publisher: Midland. Item #1 is even a WP:CASESTUDY. gidonb (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: Could you give more iformation so we can locate the sources, and if possible, check them out for ourselves? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:LaundryPizza03, of course! Thanks for asking! It's all through Google Books. gidonb (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There is this: [1], not certain about reliability. Otherwise it's just routine day-by-day reporting, no WP:LASTING. All other information found is either mundane database entries or trivial. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow! Great find! That's already 4 cases of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, this time from 2024! How does such persistent coverage correspond with your conclusion? gidonb (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleFlying is NOT a reliable source - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#SimpleFlying.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:NEXIST, there is absolutely no lack of sources. Exactly why nom did not raise that. Rather, the question is whether the importance of this event was temporary or is WP:LASTING. Hence, also this fourth and very detailed source carries weight, in addition to the other three, as it proves that the interest in this event continues to date. For that purpose (only) the quality of the publication is of little or no relevance. gidonb (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleFlying does not count towards notability because it isn't reliable - the guideline that you quote does not say that non-reliable sources count for notability - you need to show significant coverage in reliable sources - for the three book sources, there needs to be significant coverage (ie. not just passing mention) - do they show that?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in Simon does not seem to be very extensive - a mention that the incident occured and discussion about how British tabloid newspapers said nice things about the pilot (in a discussion about how flight crew behaviour in accidents and near-misses. Similarly, Branson's book merely talks about how Branson entertained the flight crew on his private island after the incident - again - not really significant coverag. I can't see the Balmforth source.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by gidonb. Whether people were killed/injured/wounded are made up criteria that have nothing to do with notability and are not considered in a valid close. I would not object to a merge to one of the articles mentioned by Carguychris per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Airbus A340#Accidents or Heathrow Airport#Incidents and accidents. A standalone article is not warranted: the sources found do not meet WP:SIGCOV, and the accident fails WP:EVENT.Rosbif73 (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'll AGF on the sources given by gidonb. S5A-0043^Talk 09:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect The sources given cannot be classified as significant coverage as they are only brief and passing mentions. No evidence of lasting effects and in general, fails the event criteria. If this were to close as a redirect, I would suggest a redirect to Virgin Atlantic#Incidents and accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aergo Capital

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

There is reasonable doubt that sufficient sources exist to demonstrate the subject's notability, per WP:CORP. (Google's news search finds many hits) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Aviation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As with the nom, my own WP:BEFORE identified a relatively high number of (seemingly) independent/reliable news sources which deal with the subject org as a primary topic. And in some depth. The nom was, in my view, quite correct in dePROD-ing the article. And opening this AfD. Personally I cannot support deletion. The sources found in my own BEFORE, a number of which I've added to the article, would suggest that WP:CORPDEPTH is met. Certainly I can't support summary/procedural deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VanGrunsven RV-2

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

Fails GNG, no mention in RS besides passing ones. Is not individually notable beyond its series. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, Technology, Aviation, and United States of America. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the EAA video cited in the article has the interviewer ask the designer specifically about this design, and they discuss it in more than passing. The video from Van's about the restoration of another design which uses part of this design is also more than a passing reference, but since it's from the company themselves, it's not truly independent of the subject. In a case like this, where we have a series of 13 out of 14 closely-related articles that are all patently notable, and 1 out of 14 that's iffy, I think it makes sense to WP:IAR if we don't have the magic three sources.

[edit] Oh, and procedural note: this AfD and the nom's approach to a good faith mistake by the article's newbie creator[2] is one of the worst examples of biting I can recall seeing. And it appears to have worked; he hasn't edited since, nor responded to an attempt to reach out to him. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When did U5-tagging an unsourced autobiography that promotes the author's resume become "biting"? Are we so scared of scaring off newbies that we allow whatever promotion and spam they insert? Has the blame shifted from spammers and COIS to the new page patrollers and admins who work the speedy deletion process? Air on White (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to read over this section of the behavioural guideline and reflect a little. With behavioural guidelines, it's less about what you did, and how you did it. I completely believe that you acted in 100% good faith here, but the outcome was still a bad one for the newbie and for the project. I've done patrolling in the past, and I know what a grind it can be (and how valuable it is to the encyclopedia). But if sustaining that fight is taking its toll and leading to actions like this, it might be time for a rest for a while and work on writing about something that brings you joy and recharges you. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you concretely explain what I did wrong? How is this case is different from normal? Are you yourself aware of your patronizing, judgmental tone? Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm very happy to dive into this in detail with you; but I'll take it to your talk page. I apologise if you don't like my tone; it's not my intention to come across that way. That said, there's a profound difference between two highly experienced editors communicating in a forum like this vs how a highly experienced editor with tools permissions treated a well-meaning newbie. I would additionally suggest however, that both your responses here confirm my impression that time on the front line might be taking a toll. More shortly in a different place.--Rlandmann (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to promote anything. I am content with my employment (i.e. not looking to get into anything else) and my company makes business-to-business products (i.e. it's not like a Wikipedia reader is going to decide to buy a cargo jet after reading that I work on them). I thought that writing about myself would (A) establish that I'm knowledgeable about my field (including awareness about good public sources to get relevant details from) and (B) show that I'm trying to be honest and to do things in good faith since I'm tying my actions on Wikipedia to my real name and career, not an anonymous pseudonym. But, ok, if there is no advantage to being a real expert rather than a random anonymous stranger on the internet, I can create a pseudonymous screen name instead and use that (other than for uploading images, which I do intend to retain ownership of). Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now to the actual argument of the keep post. Interviews do not always contribute to notability. The Van's video most definitely does not count as a source as it is not independent at all - all company videos can be assumed to be promotional sources that do not undergo the rigorous fact-checking of RS. It provides 0 sources toward the "magic three." The only other source is the EAA video. Can you provide the timestamp of the interview where the RV-2 is mentioned? It is also equivalent to a serious, reliable documentary? At best, it is 1 source. No amount of invalid sources adds up to notability—0+0+0+...+0 = 0. This keep case stretches and twists policy—the independence of sources and the threshold of GNG—to shoehorn a topic of supposedly inherited notability into Wikipedia. Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, just verifying my own understanding here: when you opened this AfD and asserted that there were "no mention in RS besides passing ones", you had not actually viewed the sources? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This article has only been here a few days. I think it's too early to judge what RS might or might not be out there. By all means tag it as short on RS, but deletion is premature. Having said that, Van's Aircraft's own puff about its planes starts with the RV-3, so seeking sufficient RS to support this article could be a fool's errand. Or maybe merging into Van's Aircraft will prove a good middle way. I'd suggest we revisit this in a month or so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia and I obviously can't claim to understand the rules and the culture thoroughly. If you guys decide that the article should be deleted, then, that's fine, do what you think is best.

FWIW, my rationale for creating the article was the following: Van's Aircraft is far and away the world leader in experimental airplanes, with over 11000 airplanes flying and countless others being built. When people in the aviation world first learn about Van's - or maybe after investigating RV airplanes for a while - the question naturally comes up: If it's so easy to find out about the RV-1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15, then... What about the RV-2, 5, and 11? Now, again, I'm not 100% sure that Wikipedia is the place for (at least a very summarized version of) the answer, but... Firstly: Wikipedia already had an article for the RV-11 (which made it a little further in its construction but was also unfinished). And secondly: Wikipedia has countless articles about concept aircraft that never made it into the air, included in the encyclopedia because they're part of a series where people often wonder about missing numbers (The X-6 and X-54 didn't make it very far at all, and the X-33 and X-57 were cancelled after substantial prototyping and subsystems tests but before completion of the final vehicle), or because the development project was large and/or resulted in relevant technologies or partnerships or R&D later used for other things (National AeroSpace Plane, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, High Speed Civil Transport, Aerion SBJ and AS2...). So I figured, if all those X planes and supersonic transports that never made it off the drawing board all warrant Wikipedia articles (and the RV-11 apparently does too), then the RV-2 probably does too.

But, again, I'm new here, and if my reasoning goes against how you guys think Wikipedia should be run, then, do whatever you think is best. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short: The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability states, under "Projects and studies", that such aircraft "are generally discouraged unless reliable sources provide strong evidence that the project (...) is a significant project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft". It seems to me that the RV-2 and its article meet this criterion. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad to see you back! I was really worried that we might have scared you off.

Note that that guideline is an unofficial one and does not trump the General Notability Guidelines. (It's also ancient and reflects Wikipedia practices from 10-15 years ago, so needs to be brought into line with current practice...) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the !votes thus far all favor keep, their arguments call for (reasoned) exceptions to policy/guidelines rather than basing themselves on it, so a relist to allow for further discussion seems appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a point of order, my "Keep for now" is based on Articles for deletion where it says; "Wikipedia policy encourages editors to use deletion as a "last resort" following attempts to improve an article by conducting additional research." (my bold). I am pointing out above that those attempts need time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angara Airlines Flight 200

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The majority of sources constitute those of primary sources with a lack of reliable secondary sources. The event does not have in-depth coverage with a failure of continued coverage with lasting effects having not been demonstrated. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not the best article, but there are clearly sources on the Russian language article showing sustained coverage of this fatality-causing incident. SportingFlyer T·C 12:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The russian article on Angara Airlines Flight 200 has been nominated for deletion since 2021 with those three sources talking about the heroic actions of the flight attendant. I don't mind including this in the article but there needs to be more coverage talking about the accident for a sustained amount of time for the accident to be considered notable.

"of this fatality-causing incident."

Per the event criteria, criterion #4, _{Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.}

There doesn't seem to be much that would give this accident, whilst tragic, additional enduring significance. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with you. Whether something is notable on another Wikipedia does not matter. We usually keep articles on fatal commercial plane crashes, and those articles in the Russian article discuss the flight attendant being honoured by Putin, so a big deal, and retrospectives in Russian such as [3]. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has deleted fatal aviation accidents involving commercial airliners. "Usually keep" doesn't always mean "keep" unless something gives the accident enduring significance.

You mention the flight attendant but what makes the accident notable in itself? The article fails multiple guidelines for a stand-alone article. In my opinion, there isn't enough that gives this accident enduring significance that would warrant a standalone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The death of the flight crew in normal passenger aviation combined with the lasting coverage of the event through the honouring of the flight attendant clearly gets it over the bar. SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources covering the flight attendant's honouring are primary sources since they reported on the news when it came out without actually doing much analysis. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the articles on the flight attendant are clearly secondary, not "breaking news." See [4], that is clearly not a primary source. SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's needs to be a consistent pattern of secondary sources. One secondary source does not make the rest secondary. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of secondary sources available for this incident. I don't really know why you're trying to discredit this on that ground. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 12:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The community has a longstanding consensus that the crash of a regularly-scheduled commercial passenger flight resulting in a total hull loss, fatalities, significant impacts aside from the crash of the aircraft, and/or long-term regulatory changes meets notability standards. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link an established consensus on this matter? You're saying that the accident resulted in long term effects, changes in regulations but I haven't been able to find those. Could you explain where you're coming from? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) _{Note that this comment was broken up into two parts by the following reply. I have reinstated my full reply. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

Maybe, but I'm busy. I don't expect to be able to spend much more than casual morning coffee drive-by's until mid-July at best. You could try searching youself? It shouldn't be hard to find. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I did and it turned up nothing, so unless you're referring to the essay of WP:AIRCRASH, I don't see what longstanding consensus you're talking about. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of, nor have I been able to find, any such consensus either. WP:AIRCRASH is merely intended to help assess whether an event is worthy of mention in lists of accidents and incidents, and sure enough this accident is quite rightly listed on the airline, aircraft and airport articles. Just possibly, we could redirect to one of those rather than deleting it outright. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But could you link an established consensus? Community "consensus" doesn't override policy and guidelines which the article/event fails and does not excuse it from not meeting multiple guidelines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it's consistently brought up shows that it demonstrates at least some sort of "consensus" about how these articles are reviewed at AfD. In this instance, it was a passenger flight which resulted in fatalities, and received sustained coverage "after the event," which usually results in a keep. I don't know why this would be different. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been brought up but it has never been established as an actual consensus.

Some articles, such as Lao Aviation FLight 703, Biman Bangladesh Airlines Flight 60, Miami Air Flight 293, Ozark Air Lines Flight 982 were nominated shortly after the creation of their article. Some articles such as Ural Airlines Flight 178, Air Astana Flight 1388 and VASP Flight 210, in hindsight, were very serious accidents due to their unique circumstances.

Notability isn't immediately inherited just because the event involved a commercial airliner. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying notability is inherited because of that, but look at the fresh deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Atlantic Flight 024 - it lists all the reasons when we generally characterise coverage of an aviation incident as lasting. SportingFlyer T·C 21:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link an established consensus on this matter? You're saying that the accident resulted in long term effects, changes in regulations but I haven't been able to find those. Could you explain where you're coming from? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) _{Note that this comment was broken up into two parts by a previous reply. I have reinstated my full reply. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

WP:AIRCRASH is not policy and it specifically recommends not being used at AfD. That being said, it absolutely does reflect how we tend to assess these sorts of articles for deletion, and is referenced over 800 times. SportingFlyer T·C 17:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is being referenced over 800 times incorrectly. As you said, WP:AIRCRASH is not a policy, so actual policy based arguments take precedence over essays. I don't see much evidence of this essay being thoroughly supported by the community. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not being used incorrectly. It's been mentioned at several AfDs recently and is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Senegal Flight 301 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rimbun Air de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RA-78804 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 SkyJet Elite Astra crash and you yourself used it in March here to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 35. You can't have it both ways... SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I used it incorrectly. I was told on another AfD to not use it as it was an essay which I have not since. As for the other Afds linked, just because they're used doesn't mean it's being correctly used. I can't speak for the others but let me remind you that consensus was quite clear cut in the others so arguments mentioning WP:AIRCRASH probably were not given too much value. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, in all those that you linked except for UA35, it was stated the use of WP:AIRCRASH was flawed and should not be used. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's an "and/or" in that sentence. So one or more of the items in that list. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My question still stays. [...] and long-term regulatory changes / [...] or long-term regulatory changes, it doesn't matter since it's being mentioned. Why mention it in the first place if it's being discarded and not going to be elaborated on? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Airplane crashes do not have inherent notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the decision is not to keep, it should be redirected to Angara Airlines#Accidents rather than being deleted, noting that this article is linked not just from the couple of navbox templates, but also from a few pages. It's reasonable for at least some of those appearances to remain, so interlinking is a net benefit. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]