Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation

WP:DELAVWP: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)

2025 Samaritan's Purse Cessna 208 hijacking

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

I've added in sources I've been able to find, per WP:BEFORE. Unfortunately, aside from the AP article, there is very little coverage, with most of the sources having questionable reliability. A redirect to Samaritan's Purse would be appropriate here. 11WB (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Sudan. 11WB (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Covered internationally and aircraft hijackings certainly do not occur often. There have only been three this year, and one was a minor incident. Although no casualties were reported an aircraft hijacking and even an attempt at it, is pretty notable. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Samaritan's Purse - I unfortunately have to agree. It appears this has received a lot less coverage than I expected. - ZLEA ^TǀC 05:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes i know theres limited information but its a hijacking. We have some strong information for an article. Stay Grffffff (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding more info Grffffff (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also i think information comes out slowly due to the war so we should wait Grffffff (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
South Sudan isn't at war. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There at war. Grffffff (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their* Grffffff (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sudan is in a civil war, not South Sudan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEVENT: this failed hijacking attempt has seen only minimal WP:ROUTINE coverage and falls under WP:EVENTCRIT#4: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes [...] are usually not notable. The article was clearly created WP:TOOSOON, but I don't think the counter-argument of WP:TOOSOONDEL applies here. In the unlikely event that continued coverage does emerge, the article can always be recreated per WP:USUAL. The event is currently included in List of aircraft hijackings § 2020s, which would thus be a possible redirect target as an WP:ATD, but I'm not convinced that it is WP:DUE there, let alone in the Samaritan's Purse article. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has received a large amount of coverage for a hijacking incident in South Sudan. It also involved an Christian humanitarian organisation which is why christian sources are reporting on this. There is even a investigation starting on this article. Hijackings are usually notable. It has received a large amount of attention outside of Africa. There is still coverage 2 days after the hijacking. It got a lot of attention from sources around the world. I don't get how @ZLEA is claiming there was not much coverage? Hijackings are definitely not routine or run of the mill.

List of news sources

https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/nation-world/samaritans-purse-plane-hijacked-12-3-2025/275-ab113257-df19-40ab-995d-073ae60cee61

https://www.cbs17.com/news/north-carolina-news/we-praise-god-nc-based-samaritans-purse-speaks-out-after-plane-hijacking-ends-safely/

https://www.wbtv.com/2025/12/03/north-carolina-based-nonprofit-has-airplane-hijacked-during-supply-delivery-africa/

https://avweb.com/aviation-news/gunman-arrested-after-hijacking/

https://www.christianpost.com/news/samaritans-purse-plane-hijacked-suspect-in-custody.html

https://churchleaders.com/news/2209790-gunman-hijacks-samaritans-purse-plane.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/12/02/south-sudan-aid-plane-hijacked-gunman/4ca5a946-cfac-11f0-92cb-561ee4e6a771_story.html

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article313388045.html

https://www.wxii12.com/article/gunman-hijacks-plane-south-sudan-and-arrested-after-refueling-stop/69621641

https://www.geo.tv/latest/637342-armed-hijacker-of-us-charity-samaritans-purse-plane-arrested-in-south-sudan

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/coastal/news/2025/12/03/samaritan-s-purse-hijack-south-sudan

https://voz.us/en/world/251204/31606/south-sudan-gunman-hijacks-plane-belonging-to-the-american-christian-christian-christian-organization-samaritan-s-purse.html

https://www.sudanspost.com/nss-arrests-armed-suspect-after-attempted-plane-hijacking-in-wau/

https://journalnow.com/article_e2c4642d-ef0a-513c-9869-6c2328a7dc36.html

https://www.fox16.com/crime/north-carolina-based-aid-groups-plane-hijacked-in-south-sudan-gunman-arrested/

https://www.charlottestories.com/armed-hijacker-seizes-nc-based-mission-plane-before-dramatic-safe-landing-in-south-sudan/#google_vignette

https://christiannewsnow.com/gunman-hijacks-samaritans-purse-plane-we-praise-god-that-no-one-was-seriously-injured/ Zaptain United (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more sources:

https://barlamantoday.com/2025/12/04/samaritans-purse-plane-hijacked-in-south-sudan-pilot-lands-safely-after-armed-standoff/

https://www.africanews.com/amp/2025/12/03/gunman-hijacks-aid-plane-in-south-sudan-demands-flight-to-chad/

https://www.dailypioneer.com/2025/world/hijacked-aid-plane-rescued.html

https://avbrief.com/samaritans-purse-caravan-hijacked/

https://news.az/news/samaritan-s-purse-plane-hijacked-while-flying-to-south-sudan

Zaptain United (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been plenty of WP:ROUTINE news coverage, sure, as would be expected for any aircraft incident – but I don't see any WP:INDEPTH analysis. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the argument the nominator was making was that there wasn't that much coverage which I was trying to disprove Zaptain United (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, what Blox said, its a hijacking, sure not notable but doesnt happen a lot. Grffffff (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not notable, then it's not notable. The frequency of a specific type of event does not itself determine the notability of individual events. - ZLEA ^TǀC 18:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep for now. Article was nominated after 2 (maybe 3) days after the incident. Within that span, it has received significant coverage internationally. Enough time hasn't passed to deny claim to notability. Let's wait at least for three months to see what kind of coverage it receives. Wikipedia:Too soon to delete —usernamekiran (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zaptain United. Many sources about the hijacking, that were not seen by the nominator. ~2025-31396-09 (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did see them. Most of them are just the same Associated Press article on different news aggregator sites. 11WB (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holcomb Perigee

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

Unsourced since 2004. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aerocar International, which appears to be the original manufacturer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced for 21 years, and tagged as such for 16 years. Zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katiola Airport

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

Fails WP:GNG. I'm unable to find any reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of this airport. The best that I could find was this one-line passing mention in this book: "Katiola is served [...] by a small regional airport." (p. 316) Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and Ivory Coast. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A search in French for Katiola Aerodrome did bring up a couple more hits but I can't access the full text and it doesn't look significant anyways. It's also the simplest of airports - a dirt airstrip. SportingFlyer T·C 21:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Katiola#Transport as a reasonable alternative to deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1986 Indian Air Force Antonov An-32 disappearance

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

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oman-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Antonov An-32#Accidents and incidents which already has a brief description of the accident. Our deletion policy says to first consider alternatives to deletion before nominating an article for deletions. The Rredirection subsection states "A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate." --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Antonov An-32#Accidents and incidents – Per A.B. Svartner (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The additional sourcing posted below gets this one across the mark for notability. nf utvol (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Redirect as noted above. Acceptable ATD in this case. Also, as a note to the nominator, just being a stub is absolutely not a valid reason for deletion. nf utvol (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability... Yousuf31 (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... But one of your stated deletion reasons was "because it's a stub" and that is in no way related to its notability. nf utvol (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, the other source in the article was in 2014 so that is a secondary source. There are more secondary sources talking about the disappearance years after 1986 than when it first disappeared. Zaptain United (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Express article goes into great detail on this disappearance in 2024 despite no investigation ever being conducted on this disappearance or any long-term search. Zaptain United (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I edited it Yousuf31 (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Analysis of sources presented:

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/indian-air-force-aircraft-missing-indian-ocean-9606370/			✔ Yes
https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/third-indian-air-force-antonov-an-32-aircraft-disappeared-in-last-33-years/14494/	Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#fighterjetsworld.com.		✘ No
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/missing-iaf-plane-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-an-32-aircraft-331016-2016-07-24		Only briefly mentioned.	✘ No
https://www.livefistdefence.com/the-lost-the-found-a-tale-of-two-indian-antonovs/		Only a short mention.	✘ No
https://www.thequint.com/news/india/previous-incidents-of-an-32-goes-missing#read-more		Short paragraph that doesn’t go into further details other than a retelling of the disappearance.	✘ No
https://www.firstpost.com/india/missing-iaf-aircraft-brings-back-memories-of-2016-1986-incidents-when-an-32-wreckage-was-never-found-age-old-fleet-awaits-overhauling-6751171.htm		Short mention of the disappearance.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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

https://www.firstpost.com/india/missing-iaf-aircraft-brings-back-memories-of-2016-1986-incidents-when-an-32-wreckage-was-never-found-age-old-fleet-awaits-overhauling-6751171.html here is the link for firstpost. Zaptain United (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is the link that works. Zaptain United (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the working link, I've amended the assessment. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://web.archive.org/web/20160716045112/http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories3291_MH370_Rekindling_Memories_IAF_AN-32.htm

How about this source? It is used in the article itself. I think this is sustain coverage. Zaptain United (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you check if this source is good? Zaptain United (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source is pretty in-depth and appears to be reliable (and it appears to have been written by Vinod Bhatia). So all in all, there are now two sources that count towards WP:GNG. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Given other sources found. I can add the following 2

* the incident is mentioned in a list here https://thefederal.com/category/states/west/gujarat/gujarat-7-major-air-crashes-ahmedabad-boeing-accident-191620 .

* Also in this book https://www.google.se/books/edition/Without_a_Trace_1970_2016/UBOWDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=1986,+an+Antonov+An-32&pg=PT165&printsec=frontcover Dualpendel (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those establish notability. Wikipedia prefers reliable and secondary sources with editorial oversight. Yousuf31 (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable incident. Apart from some initial reports and minor mentions, it has ultimately failed to meet WP:LASTING. Orientls (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as incident. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Antonov An-32#Accidents and incidents per WP:ATD. Fails WP:NEVENT but we can cover it at this other page.4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't there sustain coverage. We have at least 2 sources that have sustain coverage that are published decades after the disappearance. One of the source authors is written by Vinod Bhatia who is a famous Indian Air Force Officer. How does this article not have sustain coverage when even a famous officer who was awarded the Vir Chakra award wrote about it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160716045112/http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories3291_MH370_Rekindling_Memories_IAF_AN-32.htm

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/indian-air-force-aircraft-missing-indian-ocean-9606370/ Zaptain United (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has passed the threshold. That said, even if more material were to be found it's better to cover these together per WP:NOPAGE. Editorially we really don't need to cover this in a separate page.4meter4 (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Antonov An-32#Accidents and incidents: as an AtD. No evidence has been presented of reliable-source SIGCOV of this incident; instead we have WP:SPS and unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted following a "redirect" closure and discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 November 22.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, Oman, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:TNT. It would need a significant improvement to be encyclopedic, even if notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Two WP:GNG-establishing sources exist, fulfilling WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH ([1] [2]). As an expansion is a viable solution, WP:TNT does not apply since the article is not "hopelessly irreparable" (being a stub). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:55, 3 December 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 December 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' to Antonov An-32#Accidents and incidents. If this is notable then this is barely notable, and unfortunately, "military aircraft crashes" is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs expansion and imrpovement, but multiple independent reliable sources does excist about the incident. ~2025-38317-97 (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are sufficient to establish notability under the WP:GNG, as noted by Aviationwikiflight and others. Appeals to WP:TNT are self-defeating and contrary to existing policies (WP:ATD-E, WP:IMPERFECT, see also WP:TNTTNT). I object to a redirect on the grounds that military aircraft crashes are "run of the mill" (perhaps insinuating that they as a class are?), as not every crash obtains coverage and this one did (ROTM here functions as a runaround of the GNG here)Katzrockso (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Comment for the Administrators: Since @Zaptain United seemingly did not read WP:EDITATAFD by not noting that he moved the article during an AfD other than simply changing the link on the top (which is not sufficient by WP:EDITATAFD), I'll do it for them. Zaptain United moved the page in question from 1986 Indian Air Force An-32 disappearance to 1986 Indian Air Force Antonov An-32 disappearance on 3 December. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...and someone moved it back to the original title. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Aviationwikiflight. There is now sufficient sourcing to pass GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable accident, fails WP:NEVENT and WP:LASTING — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-38637-73 (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i.e. allow article when someone gets around to writing one, based on the >=2 GNG-compliant sources identified and other information available. There is enough out there for an article to be written. However, optionally, 'redirect with target as above for now, as a purely editorial decision, because in its current state the article carries no information that is not in the list-of-accidents article. Getting past the alphabet soup of policies, it makes sense to have this as a standalone article if and only if someone cares enough to actually write a meatier one based on the sources identified in this discussion. Martinp (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources found that meet GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

А-300-538

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

Insufficient demonstration of notability. -- Beland (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Russia. Beland (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as below: nothing in reliable sources (mostly blogs and "security" sites) and there doesn't seem to be continued coverage. Seems like another case of miracle technology plans from Russia that never come to fruition or take decades to even reach serviceable prototype stage. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alekseyev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- to either List of ground-effect vehicles or the Alekseyev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau, scarce returns from additional searches, did find this maybe to add more context. too bad it seems to be more of a blog site.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

А-080-752

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

Insufficient demonstration of notability. -- Beland (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Russia. Beland (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in reliable sources (mostly blogs and "security" sites) and there doesn't seem to be continued coverage. Seems like another case of miracle technology plans from Russia that never come to fruition or take decades to even reach serviceable prototype stage.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alekseyev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alekseyev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Airbus A320 software update

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

Updates on their own very rarely constitute an article. This, along with the fact that nothing has happened since updates were announced except speculation makes me believe this is more WP:NOTNEWS which violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. This could potentially be merged into the article Airbus A320 family or moved to Wikinews as an alternative, but I don't believe it currently deserves a Wikipedia article. Johnson524 01:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The affected aircraft are basically grounded until they get the software update. Supposed to take 2-3 hourcs per a/c. Does not deserve an own article and should be moved into main A320 article. --Denniss (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the EASA air directive it's actually a software downgrade of the ELevator Aileron Computer from version 1.04 to 103+ and a prohibition to to re-install ELAC with version 1.04 on any A320 series a/c. Denniss (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Computing. Shellwood (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and ~~delete~~ redirect - there have been some delays due to this (most notably, Avianca has been forced to halt booking until 8 December), but most airlines have been able to complete the upgrade overnight and were able to fit it in their schedules of general operations. (RTE, Yonhap) Unless if any more disruptions occur this should be a blip on the news radar. MSG17 (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have boldly added some more details on the outage at Airbus A320 family#2025 software update to serve as a potential redirection target. MSG17 (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete I created this article as I was spooked by the seeming urgency of the BBC News live blog - usually a harbinger of longevity, but not in this case. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Currently, the stories about this event are not too much. If this is a little event, I think it should be merged. Shwangtianyuan MAKE CHINA GREAT AGAIN 13:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge--this is prime for being an update on the A320 page, rather than its own separate article. Departure– (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & delete Merge to A320. Not significant for separate article.

Merge & delete Merge to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_bugs#Transportation. The incident does not belong only on the A320 page as the software bug affects Airbus types A319/A320/A321 ([3]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XeZaR (talk • contribs) 01:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the Airbus A320 family article covers all variants, but yes it should be added there too, I agree. MSG17 (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: merge usually implies leaving a redirect, which would not be appropriate in this case as this won't have been the only A320 software update in 2025. With 6000 aircraft temporarily affected this probably deserves a sentence or two in the A320 family article, but nothing more. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / redirect (as its in the news worldwide), I don't agree with a deletion, as a redirect would be better where the update is described. ~2025-31396-09 (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canton-Hackney Airport

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

Fails WP:NBUILD due to a lack of in-depth coverage in secondary sources other than WP:ROUTINE mentions in aviation-related databases. The airport evidently closed in November 2022 according to the city website, the FAA airport information page is deadlinked, and its closure was apparently so inconsequential that I cannot find any media coverage except for a brief listing at Abanadoned and Little-Known Airfields. Carguychris (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Texas. Carguychris (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - also "The airport has no IATA or ICAO designation." Bearian (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canton, Texas#Transportation as a reasonable alternativbe to deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Carguychris (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RedShellMomentum ☎ ✎ 20:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect WP:BLAR to Canton, Texas#Transportation as an WP:ATD, per WP:CHEAP. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banff Airport

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

I entirely fail to see why this airstrip merits an article, and the only questio iaa where to redirect it. An editor redircted it ti List of airports in Alberta#Banff Airport but I incline towards Banff National Park.TheLongTone (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Banff National Park. It can be briefly mentioned in that article.4meter4 (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Banff National Park#Transportation as I hadn't thought about that as a target yesterday. I notice that Banff Park Compound Heliport also redirects to the section on that page. Frankly back in 2005 / 2006 stubs like this were welcomed but times change and today minor airports like this should be redirected. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 17:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Banff National Park#Transportation, given the sources present, it probably deserves about one sentence on the page but redirecting makes the most sense here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't currently covered, so a merge will be necessary.4meter4 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state, it makes sense why one would want to delete this page. There is actually a large history of Banff Airport involving a fight between Parks Canada and Transport Canada on whether to keep it open, ending in its current state as an emergency-only landing strip. I think that instead of deleting the page, we should work to add the information about CYBA that is currently missing, including its history before it was closed and, probably the main reason why someone would want to go to this page, the fight between PC and TC. This is not just some random remote airstrip; it actually has an interesting story involving not just aviation but government infighting. Jacob p12 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently it looks to me that the discussion is leaning more to redirecting the page rather than deletion. If there is some further information about a disagreement between Parks Canada (PC) and Transport Canada (TC) and it's supported by Wikipedia:Reliable sources then the redirect can be expanded. However, I doubt that there is much in the way of a disagreement between PC and TC. TC would not care about the opening or closing of an airstrip not owend or operated by them. I think any disagremeent is going to have been between PC and the unnamed environmentalists. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Banff National Park#Transportation, adding to the existing mention of the heliport. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There at least appears to be some amount of information about this little airport, including Banff: History, Attractions and Activities, Hutchings 2002, p. 83; 1969 version of Canadian Aviation; and Popular Aviation (1993), p. 110. I couldn't go far enough back for a decent newspaper search, and while the Hutchings book looks clearly significant I can't access these enough to clearly save the article. If additional sources can be found, there shouldn't be any reason why this couldn't be recreated - maybe a combination draftify and redirect? SportingFlyer T·C 22:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some input on SportingFlyer's comment, although consensus is clearly leaning towards merge/redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash

AfDs for this article:

(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". The sources in article consist of contemporary news coverage and a database, none of which are secondary. The same goes with the sources provided in the previous AfD which I analyzed here.

There is no sustained continued coverage of the accident, and there are no retrospective sources that provide significant/in-depth coverage of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated.

WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that 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, which this event lacks per the above.

Possible alternatives to deletion include merging/redirecting this article to either List of accidents and incidents involving the Antonov An-24#2010s or Tarco Aviation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Sudan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has changed since the last AFD that makes this not notable. Your just saying the same kind of stuff from the last AFD. I am voting keep based on the comments of @Nfutvol and @SportingFlyer from the first one. Zaptain United (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also isn't it a little too soon to nominate this again? I thought you had to wait at least a year? Zaptain United (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure I understand your comment. What exactly is meant to change for one to bring this at AfD? There's nothing against restating one's position (not that all of what I said is the same). And six months is the recommended time, not one year. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay 6 months is the recommended time. I understand. But, I notice you tried to do a deletion review, but most of the editors voted to not relist the AFD. I don't get the point of doing this again when not only the previous AFD decided to keep the article, but also the deletion review where more experienced and familiar editors endorsed the closer. Zaptain United (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and others also shared the same opinion as me. The AfD was closed nine months ago, so I don't see a problem with attempting another discussion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes I agree with Zaptain United. ~2025-35574-32 (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing has changed since the last AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 12:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of accidents and incidents involving the Antonov An-24#2010s: the previous AfD close wasn't exactly a resounding consensus, noting some weak arguments. Deletion review is not material here: DRV serves only to determine whether the closure was "reasonable", not to rehash the deletion discussion per se. This was a routine accident covered by WP:EVENTCRIT#4, with no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is nothing procedurally wrong with this AfD. Please focus on policy based reasons about the article's notability or lack there of rather than whether the discussion should exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To the list of accidents involving AN-24 as suggested by Rosbif. This accident only had routine event coverage. I am not finding coverage beyond the initial news cycle in November 2010 + some reports when safety analysis was released. Given the lack of continued coverage or significant changes to government policies based on this accident, it should be deleted/redirected per WP:EVENTCRIT#4. An entry in the appropriate list is more than enough for this crash.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are some additional sources

Sudanese minister survives plane crash | News | Al Jazeera Net

Monitoring: Sudanese plane crashes in the last 15 years

رصد : أحداث سودانية هامة (70) وقعت في شهر ديسمبر... - صحيفة الراكوبة Zaptain United (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1: "December 2010 also saw another plane crash while attempting to land in Zalingei, West Darfur, resulting in the death of one woman and the survival of most of the passengers, who sustained minor injuries."

2: "In December 2010, a civilian plane crashed while attempting to land in Zalingei, West Darfur, killing one woman. The other passengers sustained minor injuries."

3: "December 2010: A civilian aircraft crashed while attempting to land in Zalingei, West Darfur, killing one woman. The remaining passengers survived with minor injuries."

This is the total extent of the coverage in the three sources provided. These are just passing mentions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relisting comment assumes this needs to be a completely new discussion, but all of the same arguments from the last, well-attended AfD still apply. SportingFlyer T·C 22:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I think would be helpful to the eventual closer @SportingFlyer is why you think nothing has changed/consensus hasn't. I agree/nothing has changed aren't super helpful as a standalone Star Mississippi 03:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an event from 2010 which has already established notability through the sources in the article and was referenced multiple times after the event happened. Civilian passenger flights with fatalities are not WP:ROUTINE. There are no new sources or information, this is just trying to get another bite at the apple to delete an article for reasons that honestly baffle me. SportingFlyer T·C 10:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This is an event from 2010 which has already established notability through the sources in the article and was referenced multiple times after the event happened." – Contemporary coverage, passing mentions, the final report, and databases don't establish notability.

"Civilian passenger flights with fatalities are not WP:ROUTINE." – This varies, but they are routine if there are no sources to establish notability, such as is the case here. Not every fatal commercial plane crash is notable.

"There are no new sources or information..." – Isn't this an argument for deletion? If there are no new sources, wouldn't this mean that the accident isn't notable?

"...this is just trying to get another bite at the apple to delete an article for reasons that honestly baffle me." Consensus can change. There's nothing against reattempting a deletion discussion. WP:6MONTHS recommends against renominating an article for deletion until at least six months have passed. The last AfD closed on 20 February, meaning that nine months had already passed at the time of the nomination. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop twisting my words. The last AfD was at the start of this year. It closed as a keep because the crash was covered worldwide, and because the crash continues to be mentioned in aviation lists. The mere fact that there has been little to no coverage of a plane crash that happened 15 years ago over the last nine months in a part of the world where coverage may not be consistent - especially due to the civil strife occurring there - is not suddenly a reason to delete this article. This is a waste of the community's time. SportingFlyer T·C 12:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I twist your words? If I did do so, it wasn't my intention.

"The mere fact that there has been little to no coverage of a plane crash that happened 15 years ago over the last nine months in a part of the world where coverage may not be consistent - especially due to the civil strife occurring there - is not suddenly a reason to delete this article." I don't particularly give much attention to where a plane crash occurred when trying to establish notability other than looking for sources in relevant languages. We have WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT for a reason, none of which state that "X countries" get a special pass regarding notability. Whether a plane crash occurred in Sudan, Canada, Japan, etc... if there are no sources that establish notability, well then the crash simply isn't notable. This is the reason to delete article on events like this. Passing mentions in listings of plane crashes do not establish notability (hence why WP:SIGCOV/WP:INDEPTH exist). If you feel that this discussion is a waste of community time, there is no obligation to participate in this discussion. In summary, no good coverage = not notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"There are no new sources or information" is not an argument for deletion. There are lots of sources available - there was worldwide coverage of the crash, there was coverage of the investigation, and it continues to be mentioned in lists of crashed passenger flights in Sudan. And yes, BIAS does matter - this would not even be at AfD if it had happened in the USA. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is an argument for deletion. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE exists for a reason.

Contemporary (worldwide) coverage + contemporary coverage of investigation + passing mentions ≠ notability.

Sources that provide continued significant/in-depth coverage of the accident = notability

This crash didn't happen in the US. Off-topic, but let's say that a similar crash had happened in the US with the same amount of coverage that this accident received. I doubt for a single moment this would even survive AfD. Bias does not exempt a topic from meeting notability guidelines. It's something to take into consideration, but it's not something that should be used to justify keeping non-notable articles without the necessary sourcing to establish notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 HAL Tejas Dubai Airshow crash

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

Military jets frequently crash, particularly when performing aerobatics. Precedent says that not every crash deserves a page. WP:NOTNEWS applies and its WP:TOOSOON to know if this will have any lasting impact. Currently it warrants a para on the HAL Tejas page and a short para on the Dubai Airshow page Mztourist (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to clarify this vote comes with an inherent support for redirecting to the Dubai Airshow article and adding its content there + to the HAL Tejas article. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article should never be deleted. ~2025-36388-95 (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with HAL Tejas per nom? First time doing this, but this might be a suitable solution. The Phase Master 03:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Dubai Airshow. While an aircraft crash is saddening to hear, it is not as notable compared to some other accidents. The pilot also having an article is also not necessary. TheSwagger13 (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events WP:EVENT and is not merely routine news. and Several has standalone coverage. This crash is notable beyond routine news!!!! . It was the first fatal accident in the Tejas programme, happened at a major international airshow ( Dubai Airshow) , and also received significant coverage from multiple global sources. so there is clear precedent. The event has long-term relevance to the aircraft’s history and fits WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unsosctent (talk • contribs) 03:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here indicates this is anything but a routine military crash. Zaptain United (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dubai Airshow#2025. Better redirect target than the type page, as the fact that it was a crash at an airshow seems to be the more relevant aspect. There's a possibility that there will be enough coverage in the future for a standalone article, but it's not there yet. nf utvol (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it should be kept to remember the incident and honour the legacy of the pilot.--Junior Jumper (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTMEMORIAL jolielover♥talk 09:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this incident killed the pilot and it's one of military crashes in November 2025. Also it is listed as a airshow disaster, and lastly the crash was the first fatal crash in Al Maktoum International Airport and Dubai Airshow, so it should be kept and respect to the pilot who tried everything. Jahndah (Talk) 11:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it should be kept and respect to the pilot who tried everything

As stated above, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Most of the reasons you give are great reasons for it to be noted at other articles, not for it to have an article of its own. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dubai Airshow per Nfutvol. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 13:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wide coverage. ArionStar (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about this makes it not an ordinary military jet crash? How did you know the coverage is not just temporary? Zaptain United (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dubai Airshow per Nfutvol and Minorax. As devastating as the incident is, I don't think it's warranted to have it's own article just for one death which is the pilot. A redirect to the Dubai Airshow is enough to give info about this incident there without either saying it's not important what's so ever to be mentioned but also not important enough to warrant it's very own individual article. Nintenga (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dubai Airshow per Nfutvol and Nintenga. Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 18:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with NOTNEWS, however every aviation accident that makes the headlines has a Wikipedia article created not long after. I have said this before but both the article and this AfD are TOOSOON. The accident has significant coverage and will likely continue to, being the first fatal crash at this airshow. (I am aware of WP:CRYSTAL, however I would be surprised if the coverage suddenly stopped.) 11WB (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I am advocating for a redirect here. If a body of SIGCOV develops in the wake of the event, it's easily reconstituted as a standalone article through a reversion to the previous edition with the addition of any new sources. nf utvol (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Too soon to delete as there is many reliable in-depth coverage. ~2025-35574-32 (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dubai Airshow#2025 as an alternative to deletion per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". All of the coverage that currently exists is not secondary as they don't contain analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself and are narrative, and coverage of this crash has mostly subsided. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that 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. Crashes at air shows are pretty routine (see List of air show accidents and incidents in the 21st century), and there isn't much that would give this crash "additional enduring significance." Articles on crashes like this can always be recreated in the future should something change, but for now, the coverage does not establish the event's notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dubai Airshow#2025, WP:NOTNEWS I believe the incident is not big enough to require a separate article, the event also does not have any long term effects. Xoocit (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hal Tejas#Accidents and incidents (my preference) or Dubai Airshow#2025 as an ATD. Coverage beyond the initial news cycle seems highly unlikely. WP:USUAL applies: the article can always be recreated if other factors of significance subsequently come to light, or if sustained coverage in secondary sources does occur. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The US team cancelled it's final show and the Russian team did a Missing Man manoeuvre in tribute. It's a significant event now KanhaKanhaiya (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dubai Airshow#2025. None of the arguments made are strong enough to warrant an exclusive article. Hate to break it, but people die every day in plane crashes, are the Cessna 172s that crash notable? Regarding news coverage, almost every plane crash in history makes news, doesn't mean they're all notable. Also, regarding the cancellation Missing Man, that doesn't mean it's notable at all. Ceremonies/funerals occur for most crashes. Doesn't mean notability. I'm seeing no good arguments for keeping right now, other than WP:ILIKEIT. relton66 (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. Does it contribute to this project knowing where his relatives where at the time of the crash? Borgenland (talk) 11:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A week on, the accident is still receiving coverage from reliable news outlets:

Economic Times

The Jerusalem Post

11WB (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Not a major event. Grimforge (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dubai Airshow#2025. Not notable enough for a standalone article, but geeze, they resumed the airshow hours after the crash?!? Talk about disrespect for the pilot. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with NOTNEWS,The accident has significant coverage and will likely continue to, being the first fatal crash at this airshow. agreeing with user:11WB Bech07 (talk)
Bech07 (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dubai Airshow#2025. Military aircraft crashes are, sadly, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, even at an airshow; there would have to be something exceptional to establish seperate notability, and there doesn't seem to be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEVENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-38637-73 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Hurricane Hunters NOAA 42 incident

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NEVENT. The only significant coverage is from the episode of Air Crash Investigation (ironic, since there was no crash); everything else is either passing mentions, primary, or non-independent (by NOAA or Jeff Masters of Weather Underground who was on the flight). I attempted to call for more sources but was promptly reverted with no further attempt to show independent secondary sourcing. I note that this was previously the site of an edit war involving many parties between redirecting to Hurricane Hugo or not. I believe it is time for the community to formally decide if a standalone article is merited for this event. A basic before search did not identify anything providing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and United States of America. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't see why the section, Lockheed WP-3D Orion § Accidents and incidents, can't be expanded to include more detail of this event, or/and redirect it to Hurricane Hugo. BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The edit war was over putting this in Hurricane Hugo, but your idea seems like a much better option. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Aviation, and Barbados. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Lockheed WP-3D Orion § Accidents and incidents. Not enough independent significant coverage, this was a relatively minor incident anyway that would easily be covered in the suggested merge target. As an aside, I don't know why that user reverted your tag...it shouldn't have been removed without further discussion. nf utvol (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not enough sustain secondary coverage?

https://eos.org/articles/the-wildest-ride-on-a-hurricane-hunter-aircraft Zaptain United (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is independent sustain coverage and it got a ACI episode despite it being an obscure incident.
6 of the Most Harrowing Flights in Hurricane Hunter History | The Weather Channel

The Wildest Ride on a Hurricane Hunter Aircraft - Eos Zaptain United (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you consider adding or at least identifying the second source when I initially tagged the article for notability? If you'd done that instead of just blindly reverting, we might not be at AfD right now. The first source is only a few short paragraphs and I don't think it meets SIGCOV. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure your supposed to do a Wikipedia:BEFORE when you are considering a AFD nomination. Zaptain United (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure you would have seen I did do a BEFORE search if you actually read my nomination. That doesn't mean I searched exhaustively for every possible source of coverage anywhere on the entire internet. You're ignoring my point that, since you knew about this source, you could easily have added it when I first tagged the article. When I did a quick search for references as part of NPP just prior to placing the tag, I did not find that reference. If you had added it to the article instead of just reverting and saying "it's notable trust me" things might have been different. In fact, I prefer when that happens because then I can mark the article as reviewed and don't need to bother with AfD. I know you wanted a snarky one liner, but it's a little more complicated than that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you don't want to link to the redirect with "&redirect=no" in the url. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well look, I first reverted your edit because I took a glance at the sources and thought they show enough sustain coverage to be a article. I didn't think I needed to link anything because I thought the sources were good enough in the article. It wasn't until this AFD started, that I actually began searching for sources. Zaptain United (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect, it was a small incident which would fit nicely under Lockheed WP-3D Orion § Accidents and incidents. BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lockheed WP-3D Orion#Accidents and incidents. Sometimes engine fires happen. One happened. Suitable remedial action was taken and the aircraft landed safely. I would not object to this being a sub-section of Hurricane Hugo and redirecing there either, but currently Hugo's article makes no mention whatsoever of this incident. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lockheed WP-3D Orion#Accidents and incidents; there's some sourcing, but it's minimal and not really enough to support a standalone page on the subject. I have no objection if somebody wants to expand the content at Hurricane Hugo and redirect this there, though. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 20:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — Secondary reliable coverage of the incident exists and it additionally has been used as a detailed case study. The amount of reliable sources on the incident justifies its existence as a separate article. A consensus (admittedly weak based on silence) was made to create this article on the Hurricane Hugo talk page based off of length of the main article and existence of sources for this incident. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two other sources that mention the flight signficiantly: 1, 2 RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 17:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Note that this is the event's second nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NOAA Flight 42 for more information. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as secondary sources exist about the incident. However, expansion would be appriciated. ~2025-31396-09 (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is enough WP:SUSTAINED WP:SIGCOV in the sources identified by Zaptain United to meet WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Note that if this is kept, it should be moved to NOAA Flight 42 as is the standard for aviation accident/incident articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
wait is that really the flight number. Does NOAA really refer to their planes with a flight number. The sources I see refer to it as just NOAA 42. Zaptain United (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. "42" is the aircraft number. Struck mny comment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement

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

This whole article is excessive and can be summarized in two or three paragraphs under Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#CF-35. IdanST (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First off, it's so poorly constructed it probably needs the WP:TNT treatment. Secondly, large portions of the article are nearly verbatim reprints of the source materials, to the point that I believe the article is riddled with possible WP:COPYVIO and needs a total re-write if it's to exist at all...though the easiest thing is that it should be condensed into a blurb in the CF-35 section per the nomination. nf utvol (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree the article can be improved but it should not be summarized. This is a large topic for Canadians whom use EN wikipedia ~2025-34693-37 (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve There is no need to delete this article. If a separate discussion results in the consensus that it should be summarized and re-incorporated into the main article then that can be done and this article would need to be turned into a redirect, with no deletion needed. Personally I think even a summarized and shortened version would still be too long to incorporate it into the main article and it would just need to be split out again. As the article itself notes, this has been a very complex and very long procurement process, a true Canadian national scandal (as stated by several of the cited refs) and it is not even over today. Right now only 16 F-35s have been ordered by Canada, none have been delivered, the whole purchase is under government review and may yet be terminated or modified. If anything the story documented here is continuing to get longer and more complex, not simpler and shorter. For that reason alone it should be kept and improved and not deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In a more general vein I think it is well past time that we stop deleting articles from Wikipedia, because all Wikipedia articles are now archived and available to the public forever, in this case:

Search engines already pick up links pointing to those articles, too.

What this means is that the article is never actually deleted, instead it is just frozen in time and cannot be edited ever again. That means that deleting articles is a worse outcome than fixing them and keeping them. - Ahunt (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really arguing that AfD shouldn't exist because archives exist? The vast, vast majority of people looking for information in Wikipedia aren't searching for old, deleted versions of pages in archives that aren't indexed in most search engines. Anyone likely to be pulling up deleted pages in archives are people actively searching for the deleted article, and are unlikely to be using it to obtain reliable information. nf utvol (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly I am pointing out that AfD and other deletion processes do not make articles go away, so the whole process is a bit misleading. They are never deleted, they live on, just in a form that cannot be edited any more. In practical terms I think this means that we should only be deleting articles in very clear cases of things like spam or hoaxes, otherwise, given realities, it makes much more sense to improve articles and continue to edit them, rather than "delete" them, rendering them basically immortal and untouchable instead. - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why would an editor ask for the deletion of this historically accurate article. There are multiple mainstream sources including the government of Canadas own web pages and reports.

The main reason I’d suggest an editor wants this deleted is because it make the current liberal government in Canada look like a total disaster. They cost Canadian tax payers $10’s of billions in extra costs for fewer aircraft. All because of a political decision. Only to chose the same aircraft they first rejected (because the previous conservative government chose the aircraft first!). This page needs maintaining because it show the depth of political interference and corruption for political purposes and the shear Incompetence of elected officials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-35702-12 (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Svartner (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Heavily discussed numerous reliable sources for a sustained period of time. Opinion pieces from the Toronto Star [4], Globe and Mail [5], CBC [6], CTV News [7], Reuters, [8], and more. All of these sources discuss changes only within the previous few months, in addition to the sustained coverage shown by the sources in the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperatorhobbes (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the comments supporting keeping of this article either presuppose notability or provide reasons that are not generally accepted at AfD. More discussion of how this topic meets our notability standards are needed; this can include whether or not the sources provided by Imperatorhobbes are sufficient for estasblishing notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With 292 cited references, almost all of which are accepted third party, independent reliable sources, I do not think that any argument can be made that this is not a notable subject. In fact the OP does not make that argument in the original deletion nomination. The nomination does not actually cite any policy reason for deletion and really amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As I contended above in my !vote and has been extensively discussed on the article's talk page, if anyone thinks this is too long, or too detailed, then the solution is "editing" not "deletion". Bottom line: there are several solid policy reasons to keep this and no policy-based reasons to delete it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Imperatorhobbes and Ahunt; the topic seems to have more than enough sources covering the topic (over a timespan of years!) to be notable. NHCLS (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of infrastructure in the United States

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

This feels like far too broad of a topic, without a clear discussion of inclusion/exclusion criteria. To my knowledge, we do not have similar articles for other countries (though they may exist, named differently). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Health and fitness, Military, Education, Schools, Engineering, Medicine, Aviation, Transportation, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep using the same rationale provided by @Katzrockso. I wouldn't be entirely opposed to the convert to categories, but I think this falls under Wikipedia:LoL (note: it should be put in alphabetical order) aesurias (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete pointless all-encompassing list. --Altenmann >talk 07:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems like it could be a perfectly cromulent navigational WP:List of lists, and as such be fine. Is there something I'm missing? TompaDompa (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT as far too broad. It would have to be a list of lists of lists of lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is in retaliation to putting up a world map of political boundaries last night. Wikideas1 (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to category Works much better with inclusion pushed from articles rather than pulled by a list article that has to be maintained manually. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a list of lists per TompaDompa. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly valid list of lists for navigational purposes - a broad topic has never prevented a Wikipedia article before.Katzrockso (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 12:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting admin note: policy based information on why you support a change in format (or not) will be helpful to the closer. Star Mississippi 00:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This satisfies many of the WP:DOAC; "Categories only show the page name of each page being categorized", "Entries are arranged in alphabetical order only (though you can control the alphabetization). They cannot be organized into sections and subsections on a single page, each with its own descriptive introduction", "Categories are not shown in mobile view.". There is no reason why both the category and list can't exist per WP:NOTDUP and MOS:LIST#List and categories.

The sectioning provides valuable informational content that would require a multitude of subcategories or otherwise be lost in a conversion to categorization, which is a valid reason to have a list per MOS:LIST#Information and WP:NLIST's "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept". Katzrockso (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert to a list of lists page. This seems to be a valid "list of lists" article per WP:LISTOFLISTS. This may entail removal of some sections like "Intermodal terminals", "Ro-Ro ports", "Satellites", and "Weather", which are merely lists of the first order (i.e. the list items are not lists themselves). Epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per statements above. Svartner (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation articles proposed for deletion WP:PROD

None