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)

West Coast Aviation Services

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

Not a single source that counts towards WP:NCORP. Most of the article's current sources are routine coverage of business transactions; source 2 is essentially an interview with the founder, so it's not independent. Source 3 leads to an error page. I could not find better sources in a WP:BEFORE search. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and California. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Source 3 is fine, it's Source 4 that leads to an error. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All refs fail WP:SIGCOV; they are either "business does business things", or promotional puff pieces. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Busiest airports by continent

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

This article merely duplicates the statistics from the pages for the individual continents (e.g. Europe and Asia). These individual pages are a much better way to view this information as they show the historical progression of the busiest airport in the region. Furthermore, the list of lists links to all the continents and also to the respective pages for regions and countries. Also, the List of the busiest airports article shows the busiest airport in each continent and links to the individual contents pages. Finally, while outdatedness is not a reason for deletion, the fact that this page has not had new statistics added for 5 years (while individual continents' pages are up to date) shows that it is redundant and hardly used. Anguswiki (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Anguswiki (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of busiest airports which has the same info. As noted by the nomination, this seems to be an unnecessary WP:CFORK as the information is already included elsewhere. A blank+redirect is a straightforward alternative to deletion. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree this duplication doesn't seem necessary. Reywas92^Talk 02:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka Airport fire

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

Does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:EVENT and has implications for WP:NOTNEWS. The Dhaka Airport fire was (or, is) a brief, localized incident with minimal long-term effects. Coverage has mainly been limited to routine breaking news reports, lacking in-depth analysis or significant historical context. There is less possibility that it can cause policy change or major casualties, nor is it likely to remain in the media spotlight. It seems better to merge this content with either Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport or 2025 in Bangladesh, rather than a standalone article, but I am unsure about the merging. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 17:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Bangladesh. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 17:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, I think we should edit this article. No need to Delete this one. It is an Wp:Event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md Mobashir Hossain (talk • contribs) 06:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No lasting effect shown or indicated. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Ahammed Saad (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bekily Airport

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

This airport is not notable and has no sources outside of flight bookings and a limited number of other primary sources. For context, this "airport" is simply a marked out dirt strip in a remote part of Madagascar. Delete or redirect to Androy#Transport (though there is currently nothing on the airport in this article other than a simple listing). 11WB (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Africa. 11WB (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added the sources! Bech07 (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not reliable. They are flight booking pages, which do nothing for a Wikipedia article. This airport (or rather airstrip) isn't notable. 11WB (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Androy#Transport, the region the airport serveds, where it is currently mentioned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nordica destinations

Previous AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:LISTN, WP:NOT, and common sense.

This is another listing of the destinations of an airline that doesn't operate any more (it finally filed for bankruptcy last year), saying that it doesn't fly anywhere (every destination is listed as "terminated"). Even on a common-sense basis this is a pointless article.

The sourcing is entirely to either Nordica, industry press, blogs, and WP:ROUTINE coverage of the opening or closing of new services based on company press-releases and announcements. There is no WP:SIRS/WP:ORGIND-passing sourcing discussing the destinations of Nordica as a group in detail.

Finally this fails WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTGUIDE as it is an exhaustive listing of all the services offered by a company. FOARP (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, and Estonia. FOARP (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous deletion discussion can be found here. Rublamb (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: into Nordica (airline)#Destinations. I have gone through all of the sources, filling in missing details. I agree with the previous AfD that it meets WP:NLIST and has numerous secondary sources, most in mainstream media with bylines. Although the airlines has closed, WP:NOTTEMPORARY would suggest that this does not mean we automatically delete content. However, I believe a merger makes more sense since the list and main articles are relatively short. Note that combining all Nordica content on the defunct corporation is not one based on WP:NOTGUIDE or WP:NOTCATALOGUE, which don't apply here. Rublamb (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What reliably-sourced, due content can be merged from a list saying that the airline doesn’t fly anywhere? FOARP (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where it used to fly can have encyclopedic value regarding the history of the airlines. Again, refer to WP:NOTTEMPORARY Rublamb (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No NCORP sourcing providing SIGCOV of this list as a group. A summary of destinations at the parent page would be fine BALASP, but doesn't require merging. JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many secondary sources that discuss groups of routes, such as articles from Estonian Public Broadcasting. Although we don't have to agree with its finding, the previous AfD reached 100% consensus that NLIST was met. The question raised in this AfD is the value of the data now that the airlines has closed. I agree it could be condensed into a prose format in the mother article, but the sources cited here would still be needed. Merging is also the best way to give credit vis-à-vis copyright. Rublamb (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some of the prose above the table to Nordica (airline)#Destinations: like most of these airline destination lists, this is a prime example of what Wikipedia is not (particularly WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE). No reliable independent sources discuss the destinations as a whole, and it thus fails WP:NLIST. Better sources can probably be found for a few destinations, but overall this is largely unverifiable as a supposed snapshot of where the airline flew at some point in the past. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this Merge, which throws out the table. FOARP (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of All Nippon Airways destinations

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:LISTN, and WP:NOT.

Of the 122 destinations listed in this article, fewer than half (55 by my count) are supported by any source at all. The other ~67 are instant WP:V fails.

Of the 55 company services for which any source at all is cited, 50 are cited to the company website or copies of the ANA's timetable. This leaves only the remaining 5 or so additional destinations which are cited to:

A Perth Now article about a single route, sourced only to company statements and the statements of officials. Fails WP:ORGIND and anyway doesn't discuss the destinations of ANA as a group as required by WP:LISTN.
A 404 article on Executive Traveller, which is industry press.
An article on aviacion online, which is industry press, based entirely on statements from ANA
A 404 article on Japan Times.
A brief, routine story about the opening of a single ANA route on Japan Times, sourced entirely to ANA statements. Routine, run-of-the-mill coverage, that is not independent of the subject.
Aeroroutes, which is Jim Liu's personal blog per RSN.
Routesonline, which is also a corporate blog and not sufficiently independent per RSN.
An article on Chron.com about the opening of a single route, sourced entirely to ANA statements.

More over this is a WP:NOT failure as it is a complete listing of all the services of a company, particularly WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. FOARP (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Japan. FOARP (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All Nippon Airways#Destinations or delete outright: these airline destination lists are a prime example of what Wikipedia is not (particularly WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE). No reliable independent sources discuss the destinations as a whole, and it thus fails WP:NLIST. Better sources can probably be found for a few destinations, but overall this is largely unverifiable as a supposed snapshot of where the airline flew at some date (two conflicting possible dates are specified in this case, and there's also a claim of potential future destinations although none seem to be actually listed). Rosbif73 (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Andre🚐 08:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's rationale. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cathay Dragon destinations

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

This is a complete listing of all services offered in October 2020 by the now-defunct Hong Kong airline, Dragonair.

This article is complete failure of WP:NCORP and WP:LISTN, which require independent, reliable sourcing that treats the destinations of Dragonair in October 2020 as a group as a notable topic by giving it significant coverage discussing it in detail. Instead, all of the sourcing here is to Dragonair's website, press-releases, blogs such as routesonline and aeroroutes, WP:ROUTINE coverage in industry press, and coverage based entirely on Dragonair company statements (e.g., this).

It's also a WP:V failure since almost none of the sourcing is from October 2020. Instead it's almost all from years before that.

Finally this is a WP:NOTGUIDE/WP:NOTCATALOGUE fail since it is a full listing of all the services of a company. FOARP (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Hong Kong. FOARP (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails LISTN, pure corporate cruft. JoelleJay (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cathay Dragon#Destinations or delete outright: these airline destination lists are a prime example of what Wikipedia is not (particularly WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE). No reliable independent sources discuss the destinations as a whole, and it thus fails WP:NLIST. Better sources can probably still be found for a few destinations, but overall this is largely unverifiable as a supposed snapshot of where the airline flew prior to ceasing operations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cathay Dragon#Destinations (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Culebra Air Services

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

Complete failure of WP:NCORP, cited to a pilot job website.

As far as I can see, this is an incredibly minor commuter airline that operated charter flights. No WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources found in my WP:BEFORE.

The previous 2007 AFD was decided entire based on WP:ITSIMPORTANT, an argument that I think we can agree no longer applies. It should be noted that even in 2007 it was doubted whether this airline actually existed any more, as far as I can see their website is 404 right now, and the website was a crazy person's blog in the 2010's so it almost certainly hasn't existed in ~20 years. FOARP (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, and Puerto Rico. FOARP (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of airlines of Puerto Rico, unless it can be proven to be defunct, in which case merge and redirect to List of defunct airlines of Puerto Rico, as an appropriate alternative to deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of Qantas aircraft

AfDs for this article:

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

Just pure WP:LISTCRUFT. Complete failure of WP:LISTN and WP:NCORP. Almost all sourcing is to Quantas publications, the official register, and blogs. The sourcing that isn't is pure passing mentions. Specifically:

The Australian -"Originally known as the City Of Canberra..." (no other mention of names, clearly just a passing mention).
Daily Telegraph - "Qantas has used Aboriginal dot painting designs on two of its Boeing 747s, called 'Wunala Dreaming' and 'Nilanji Dreaming'" (no other mention of names, just a passing mention)
Whose art is it anyway? - "Moriarty's Balarinji Designs have provided the art work for 'Wunala Dreaming' and its two sister Qantas 747s" (no other mention of naming, just a passing mention)
Postcolonial Dark Materials - "the company's current advertising campaign, the 'Spirit of Australia', imprinted on the bodies of company airplanes now painted in authentic Indigenous Dreaming designs – Nalanji Dreaming, Wunala Dreaming and the most recent Yananyi Dreaming – while the real bodies of Aborigines as sites of social in[ter]cision" (clearly just a passing mention,).

No secondary, independent, reliable source treats the topic of the names of all Quantas aircraft, as a group, as notable. Even if naming competitions have received some coverage in recent years, typically due to their "Boaty McBoatface"-type responses, this is routine coverage based on Quantas press-releases, and the names carried here go way beyond these names. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Australia. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Merge into Qantas? Open to persuasion either way, but my initial feel is that this is notable enough to keep, not notable enough to have its own page. Ben Aveling 12:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's Qantas fleet where this might make sense? I can support this. FOARP (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good to me. I have no idea why this is a standalone page, I don't know what the person who originally created this page would have been thinking, and I say that as (according to the page history) the person who originally created this page. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Ben Aveling 16:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ben Aveling. Lorstaking (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from the previous discussion which was keep by the way. The names of all Qantas aircraft until at the earliest 1970 are verifiable from John Gunn's series of books on the history of Qantas: The Defeat of Distance, Challenging Horizons and High Corridors, published by the University of Queensland Press, Gnan garra 14:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable, but not notable. See WP:SIGCOV - passing mentions aren't sufficient. It's also significant that even the 2008 close (which was before our notability standards became much stricter) said that notability was questionable and suggested merging the article. FOARP (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Qantas fleet, I guess. Absolutely not notable as a group. JoelleJay (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest airlines in Oceania

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a straight-forward failure of WP:V, WP:LISTN, WP:NCORP, and WP:NOR.

Particular, no source is cited for this ranking. Instead editors have created their own ranking by comparing the publicly-announced passengers-carried of a selection of airlines. This is an unverified, original-research WP:SYNTH of non-independent sources. The original-research nature of this article is emphasised by the way it stopped being updated in 2018 when the editors who created it lost interest. Quantas stopped publishing their data in 2019 according to their website so this may also be a reason.

In order for this to pass the relevant guidelines (WP:LISTN and WP:NCORP) we would need multiple independent, reliable sources that give significant coverage to this ranking. I wasn't even able to find one independent, reliable source that actually discusses the ranking for Oceania. At most it is possible to source a listing for specific routes (e.g., Australia-America). It is entirely possible, given how aviation in Oceania is dominated by flights into/out of the continent, that the "largest airline in Oceania" is not even based there or on this list.

Reviewing the 2007 AFD, the arguments used there (mostly WP:ILIKEIT, WP:EFFORT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:USEFUL) simply don't apply now

Nothing here is reliably and independently sourced so there is no scope for merging. As for redirects, there isn't a single clear one so I favour deletion, but I could see Largest airlines in the world, Aviation in Australia, and List of the busiest airports in Australia as at least reasonable ones. FOARP (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, France, Oceania, Australia, Fiji, and New Zealand. FOARP (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of a larger collections Category:Lists of largest airlines which all are defined from Lists of largest airlines, it may be Oceania is as the smallest segment looks less stable to get a precedent to delete all. This should be an all or none you cant a set of set articles that are not complete. Gnan garra 14:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. We don't have to keep articles just because they're part of a set. Nor do we have to delete other articles just because one of a set fails our policies and guidelines. FOARP (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
its more than otherstuff, the logical is to merge into List of largest airlines there are then all the other daughter articles on the same subject do they get mreged as well. Its obvious that this is a test case as its the only one in the set being proposed at the moment( experience tells me only someone with another agenda fights as hard responding to every keep response). This succeeds, next up all the other continents are list based on this, they too get merged as the information is important in showing the diversity of regions and the impact their airlines, Oceania just happens to be smaller than other regions. We follow that next step the same happens, then main article is too big its gets divided again maybe in this format maybe in another way. Nothing is achieved expect that people are spend time rinsing and repeating. This not comparing apples with cakes its recognising that some subject carry complexity that when comprehensively cover cant be contained with one. Critically more people access via mobile we are going to have a greater demand for succinct daughter articles and short over view articles. Gnan garra 06:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
" the logical is to merge into List of largest airlines" - In which case you'd support merging?

"Its obvious that this is a test case" - It's not obvious. I haven't even looked at the other articles and have no opinions on them. I suspect there is sourcing for at least North America, Europe, South America, and Africa since they have trans-national bodies that could produce such stats (USMCA, MERCOSUR, EU, AU), but that doesn't apply to Oceania. Also, this is ultimately just a WP:WAX argument: we're talking about this article, not others. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
its doesnt require a merge when keeping is the more logical outcome for a notable topic Gnan garra 08:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the evidence that this is notable? There is no evidence that this is an WP:NLIST/WP:NCORP pass. Stand-alone articles (which this is) are required to be notable independent from any article they've been split from per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Smaller articles do not inherit the notability of larger ones.

The article Largest airlines in the world might be split any number of ways (e.g., by country) so why (other than pure inertia/residency) does splitting it with an article specifically about Oceania - a continent that no organisation publishes a ranking for (other than Wikipedia editors doing original research) make sense? FOARP (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being out of date does not mean there is original research, that's a complete non-sequitur. Putting things in order on one statistic is just a basic WP:CALC used in all sorts of articles, not original research. This is a valid subarticle of Largest airlines in the world that is parallel to the other continent-based lists. This is a perfectly appropriate list for navigation of airlines based in the region, and there do not have to be additional sources that are Oceania-specific in order to organize the set of articles this way. Reywas92^Talk 15:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point about it being out of date is that no-one outside WP is producing this data, so when editors stopped doing OR we stopped being able to update it. Sub-articles must also be notable per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Selecting the list-items and producing your own ranking is WP:SYNTH and hence OR. FOARP (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's not. It may be outdated, incomplete, or poorly done, but it's not synthesis or original research. No one is making any subjective decision to select any airlines or not. It's not synthesis to say Qantas carried more passengers than Air New Zealand. Or sure, remove the ranking column if you think there's another airline that should be included in between these, but I see no basis for any improper synthesis or deletion. The beauty of Wikipedia lists like this is that we're able to compile statistics from multiple sources, we aren't limited to precise lists that merely duplicate what a single entity makes in a specific way already. — Reywas92^Talk 03:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"it's not synthesis" - if it's not synthesis, then how else were the airlines ranked in the table selected? The only answer is "editors decided for themselves what they should be", which is WP:SYNTH. In reality other airlines operate in Oceania and carry passengers there - particularly airlines not based there - that aren't ranked. Sure, you could remove the ranking, but then this becomes just a list of airlines based in Oceania, which already exists. FOARP (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, it's a list of largest airlines, so Air Marshall Islands may have been left out because it's pretty small, but it's actually perfectly fine and typical to have a threshold to only include the ones with the most passengers! That's not synthesis, that's not making things up, that's not drawing unsupported conclusions! Whatever the cutoff is could be listed, but just being a mediocre, incomplete list does not mean it's original research. It's certainly not synthesis or original research to only include those based in Oceania. It's a small enough list though that merging it there would be fine too though. — Reywas92^Talk 14:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to merging this to List of airlines of Oceania. FOARP (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs work but a useful list. Agree with Reywas92 and Gnangarra's points above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL. FOARP (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, "Agree with Reywas92 and Gnangarra's points above.". I did this to avoid repetition. They've made good points. If you need me to, I could repeat them but it seems like a waste of my time to type and others to read. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a complete garbage failure of NLIST: there is no independent sourcing demonstrating this is a notable topic; inclusion appears entirely arbitrary and opaque; the "ranking" doesn't even correspond to any of the columns in the table: it's not ranked by 2025 numbers or most recent reported year's numbers, and instead seems to be based on the entirely unstated and OR "total number of passengers since 2008"; and the data are such an unverifiable mess that even if the other points were untrue the page should still be TNTed.
No it is not a "simple calculation" to add up individual airlines' reported yearly figures—which apparently are not even sourceable for all years, and sometimes only cover a few months—starting with some random date, using inconsistent and sometimes totally unknown sources. Where does the Qantas number of "49.7 million passengers" for 2017 come from? Not the linked sources: the company's "results centre" financial report for June 2016 to June 2017 states 53.659 million passengers were carried by Qantas Group Operations, which comprises Qantas Domestic, Jetstar Domestic, Qantas International, Jetstar International, and Jetstar Asia (a different list from the "QantasLink, Jetstar, Jetconnect, and Network Aviation" listed in the table).
A sortable list of largest airlines might be acceptable at the list of airlines in Oceania if the inclusion criterion was explicit, straightforward, and not OR. JoelleJay (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I had just added some figures for 2019–25, but since the page was forgotten about for so long I understand the frustration. It does appear that past updates failed to correct the ranking as additional years but not complete data were added, but this is clearly just neglected and incomplete, not original research. The different list of what airlines are in Qantas group is also just outdated since Jetconnect stopped operating in 2018. Pehaps it could be limited to airlines with at least 1 million passengers. — Reywas92^Talk 18:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  So:
  1. We don't have any independent basis for the stats we're actually offering here. All we have is the statistics offered by individual airlines about how many passengers they carried, not validated by anyone outside them. We have no idea if airlines are using the same measure.
  2. We do know, or should anyway know, that actually the fiscal year varies from country to country across the Oceania region and does not end on 30 June in every country. For example, in Fiji it ends 31st July, in New Zealand it ends 31st March, in Papua New Guinea it ends 31st December, ditto Tahiti and the other French territories. This table is garbage because it is not comparing like-with-like, even the time-periods are not the same (though it states that they are, because the article is OR and bad OR at that).
  3. The reason why it is "neglected and incomplete" is because no-one - other than Wikipedia editors doing OR - is publishing such a ranking, meaning that to update it we have to do more OR, which editors now know (or should know), not to do. FOARP (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Copa Airlines destinations

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

Fails WP:V, WP:NLIST, WP:NCORP, and WP:NOT.

Let's start with the sourcing: 106 destinations are listed, of which only ~1/3rd (37 by my count) have citations of any kind. The rest simply aren't cited to anything. The majority of the content of this article instantly fails WP:V.

Then there's what the 37 destinations that are cited are cited to, which are:

The website of Copa Airlines.
The RoutesOnline blog, which is not a reliable, independent source per RSN.
A 404 link to La Estrella de Panama. Looking at an archived version, this is an announcement about future plans (WP:CRYSTAL) sourced entirely to a company announcement (not independent per WP:SIRS.
An article in Aviacion al Dia, which is industry press, cited entirely to a company annoucnement, about a future plan. Not independent per WP:SIRS.
An article in Carib Journal based entirely on a company announcement and a statement by the Dominican tourism minister, about plans for January 2026. This fails both WP:SIRS and WP:CRYSTAL.
An incomprehensible post on nlarenas.com based (in as much as I can understand what they are saying here) on a company announcement. What is nlarenas.com? It's the blog of Nicholas Larenas, airline enthusiast, which they also use to market their web design services and others. This is a pure WP:SPS.
A CanalPlusPR article about a Copa AIrlines press-conference. WP:MILL, WP:ROUTINE, not WP:SIRS.

I could go on but it would be tiresome for everyone involved. Every source is based on company announcements about future plans. None indicates the notability of the destinations of Copa Airlines as a set as required by WP:NLIST, and the sourcing is not independent of the company per WP:NCORP.

The article is additionally a violation of WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE, since it is an exhaustive listing of company services.

The article Copa Airlines already adequately summarises the destinations of the airline in Copa Airlines#Destinations. No need to go beyond this and maintain an up-to-date listing when it changes so often, doing so violates WP:NOTNEWS. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Panama. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Copa Airlines#Destinations (or delete outright, in that there are no incoming links from article space): like most of these airline destination lists, this is a prime example of what Wikipedia is not (particularly WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE). No reliable independent sources discuss the destinations as a whole, and it thus fails WP:NLIST. Better sources can probably be found for a few destinations, but overall this is largely unverifiable as a supposed snapshot of where the airline flies today or flew at some point in the past. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTCATALOGUE I do not think this is a list either. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

USAir Flight 499

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – I had previously declined this at AfC since the sources didn't demonstrate notability [1]. A discussion opened at Teahouse showed that consensus was against the creation of this article. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". The new sources added also don't contribute to notability since they're either contemporary sources or a short FAA retelling of the accident that provides no secondary analysis. 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. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Pennsylvania. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USAir Flight 499 participants: The Bushranger (talk · contribs), Lambiam (talk · contribs), Arbitrarily0 (talk · contribs) Zaptain United (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see a problem with the 2023 FAA Source. To me, that is sustain coverage. I found more sustain coverage with a book dedicated to this accident published in 2011. https://www.buecher.de/artikel/buch/usair-flight-499/31685390/#tab_description Zaptain United (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2023 FAA source is not a secondary source since it doesn't provide any "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis"; The book description says: "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" Clearly not a reliable source. Additionally, the publisher is clearly not reliable. See "OmniScriptum" for more information. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - :One female passenger got a minor injury when they bumped their head while evacuating the authors' here are clearly struggling to write anything of note. If kept it would need a absolute purge of crap content and rewriting to an acceptable level of English. Maungapohatu (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to McDonnell Douglas DC-9 § Hull losses or US Airways § Accidents and incidents: Other than the pilot having his licence revoked after the accident, there are barely any WP:LASTING effects. Most of the sources listed are in a contemporary time period with Flight 499, per WP:CASESTUDY, and though the only recent source (dated 2023) have some credit of having some historical acknowledgement, that source is only a mere recap with no new information. However, Flight 499 is a hull loss accident, making it still noteworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia per WP:AIRCRASH, hence my WP:ATD decision. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Erie International Airport: Interesting bit of airport history, but not notable by itself. One head bump, aircraft written off. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is such a minor event I'm not even sure it is worth mentioning somewhere else because it is basically WP:UNDUE at any of the target articles. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay with no wide community backing, and frankly "hull loss" is not all that unique. I mean we would have millions of articles on car crashes if that were exceptional. I don't see why airplane crashes should be different.4meter4 (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm the editor who originally added the accident summary to the Erie Int'l Airport article, which has since been expanded; I believed at that time that this accident doesn't meet WP:GNG for a standalone article due to a lack of sources other than routine FAA and NTSB reports, and I have yet to be convinced otherwise. Carguychris (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rediredt to Erie International Airport#Accidents and incidents, where thus otherwise insufficiently-notable accident is appropriately covered, as an appropriate alternative to deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to McDonnell Douglas DC-9 § Hull losses, US Airways § Accidents and incidents or Erie International Airport#Accidents and incidents: Meet the #2 of the WP:AIRCRASH: The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport and a little bit newsworthy at that time. Ohok12 (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Aquidauana Cessna 175 crash

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

This is a run-of-the-mill light aircraft accident which, from an aviation point of view, totally fails WP:EVENT and in particular WP:EVENTCRIT #4 which tells us that accidents "are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". The only additional factor here is the death of a notable person, but that doesn't give the accident enduring significance. I would suggest merging to Kongjian Yu § Death as an ATD. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Brazil. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's much too soon to find out if the event has any enduring significance or not: it happened a week ago. See WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:LASTING for reference. It has notability per the WP:GNG as it stands. If there is no continual coverage or mention of the crash in the future, that would be the time to do an AfD. Katzrockso (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A famous person died and even the President of Brazil commented on his death. I also agree it has notablity. Zaptain United (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Redirect to Kongjian Yu#Death. Recent incident that does not have any established notability per WP:NEVENT...at the very least it's too soon and we cannot presume that it will be notable just because it has had some immediate reporting. Here we are a little over a week after the incident and coverage already seems to have ended. The fact that the President of Brazil tweeted about it does not really have any relevance on notability. nf utvol (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Crashes involving Wikinotable people as a rule have articles. WP:NTEMP cuts both ways - we don't have to wait to 'establish notability' if notability is already established, which it appears to be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some crashes involving wikinotable people have articles, others don't; in any case WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't matter. But even if one were to accept that the death of a notable person is sufficient to establish the notability of the accident (which I don't think it is, per WP:NOTINHERITED), there are no other factors that give any significance to the crash itself, and redirecting to the person's article makes sense per WP:NOPAGE. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kongjian Yu#Death as that seems to be its claim to fame at this point, and it's hard to imagine this ever gets beyond the "accident is which this person died" level of notability. Mangoe (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The accident received wide coverage in the Brazilian media [2], [3], [4]. More in-depth analyses of the reasons for the accident continue to emerge in the days following the crash, which proves WP:LASTING. Svartner (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find any lasting coverage that provided any in-depth analysis of the incident. If there's additional reporting beyond the WP:ROUTINE "it happened" in the immediate aftermath, please provide the links. nf utvol (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't provide non-routine coverage, however the accident was reported in the UK by The Guardian: [5]. This does demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, though only a small amount at this stage. 11WB (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tragic, but not especially notable. I could accept redirecting to Kongjian Yu#Death but this is not a keep !vote. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This accident seems to have sufficient coverage in the news. Kongjian Yu was also a notable architect, which as The Bushranger mentioned above means the accident is technically notable by default. I am confident in !voting to keep this article. 11WB (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Just because Yu is notable, that doesn't necessarily mean the accident in which he died is also notable. To be kept, it needs to be independently notable. I see no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle of routine coverage that inevitably follows any fatal accident. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay. This accident is also too recent to have continued coverage. I'm not going to make any predictions on whether there will be independent, continued coverage. At this moment, with an article from The New York Times among others, I think WP:SIGCOV is satisfied and can be kept. 11WB (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Essays are not automatically untrue, and in practice it might as well be elevated to a guideline because everyone treats it as such. Mangoe (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is often mentioned. It could very well become a guideline in the future. For this article specifically, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NTEMP are enough for me to stick with keep. 11WB (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kongjian Yu § Death as an alternative to deletion – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. There is some small continued coverage, but the more recent news articles focus more on Yu Kongjian's career and legacy, rather than the plane crash which itself only getting small mentions (e.g. [6]), in addition to the event having no in-depth coverage. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents (e.g. cargo plane crashes) – 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. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:EVENTCRIT for lack of WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE sourcing. Fails WP:LASTING.4meter4 (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, as it is usually a reasonably notable event in aviation when a plane crashes killing multiple people (including, coincidentally, a notable person). I note that a formal investigation report has not yet been produced, and when one is that will be an additional data point for coverage here. BD2412 T 03:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally hundreds of fatal general aviation / light aircraft crashes every year. As such, a crash killing four people in a light aircraft clearly falls under WP:EVENTCRIT#4 Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, [...]) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable [...] and would thus need some other factors of significance (a) to be notable in its own right and (b) to be sufficiently noteworthy to pass WP:PAGEDECIDE. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without Kongjian Yu, I would have opted to merge. I think his presence on the aircraft has caused many editors here to !vote keep. 11WB (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian National Airlines

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

Per WP: CRYSTAL. WP:TOOSOON. WP:NOTTRUMP also springs to mind, but this seems slightly more serious than Trump usually is, I guess. JustARandomSquid (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Ukraine. JustARandomSquid (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - has not yet been established, so still may be slightly WP:TOOSOON. Source reliability may also be questionable. However, seems that plans to establish have been in place for many years, and WP:SIGCOV can be demonstrated in sources such as [7] and [8] (already present in article), as well as [9][10][11][12] (plus a few about the airline regarding the An-158: [13][14][15][16]). GoldRomean (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think Draftify is the best choice then. Because it's an old article, we still need to discuss it here I believe? JustARandomSquid (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've given this a lot of thought, and I'm on the fence. I still believe there's weak case for notability, but would support a draftify with {{Promising draft}} as a second choice if it helps to achieve consensus. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoconutOctopus talk 12:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How WP:NOTTRUMP applies, since he isn’t mentioned anywhere on the article? Protoeus (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Protoeus from WP:NOTTRUMP:

"This page in a nutshell: Not every single thing Donald Trump (or, for that matter, anyone) says or does deserves an article."

"Anyone" here encompasses Zelenskyy. What I meant is that if this is just an idea Zelenskyy toyed with at some point, it's not notable. Not saying that's the case, but I suggest editors consider it. JustARandomSquid (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's sourced to the Dept of State, which is under Mr. Trump. Oaktree b (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, short articles that consist of only product announcement information and rumors are not appropriate. So far, we only have an announcement that the company will be established,[17] that it issued shares,[18] and that it plans to use AN-158,[19] Airbus, and Boeing aircraft.[20] There is not enough information, reliable or not, to write an article. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinions are all over the map here from Keep to Delete to Draftify. We need to get to a consensus on one of these outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, this organization/company doesn't even exist, how can it be notable? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- While this may indeed not be notable, "it doesn't exist" does not automatically mean something is not notable. See for instance Aurora (aircraft). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I didn't intend my !vote to be interpreted as providing two distinct reasons, they're really the same reason - it doesn't exist *and* has only been mentioned in a speculative fashion for a future existence. Claims of notability tied to speculation on the future existence of a company is not the same as something that somebody claims already exists or is fictional. We all know Acme Corporation doesn't exist. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation articles proposed for deletion WP:PROD

None