Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation

WP:DELAV

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Aviation. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Aviation|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Aviation.

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)[edit]

132 Aviation Support Squadron RLC[edit]

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

Insufficient sources have been provided to prove notability. This article is regarding a company-sized sub-unit. PercyPigUK (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle as 7 Aviation Support Battalion RLC, a battalion sized unit, which will be more notable. This includes 132 Squadron and a couple of other companies. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME the unit you are referring to? PercyPigUK (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME. Retain squadron article as redirect - better references may appear in time. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1950 Philippine Air Lines DC-3 disappearance[edit]

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

Per the page creator's own admission, there is little information about this event. I quote: "This would be peculiar due to the lack of info, with only airframe records mostly available. Currently I have not been able to find more info on the flight itself."

I have been unable to find any coverage at all in secondary sources; all sourcing in the article is from databases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and Philippines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability issues. Although an unfortunate incident, the disappearance does not show any notability outside the event itself. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Air Kasaï Antonov An-26B crash[edit]

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

Accident barely demonstrates notability. Fails the general notability guideline, the event criteria and doesn't demonstrate any lasting effects. Accident barely has any coverage whatsoever. I've only been able to find three news channels covering it including two in french and one in english: NBC news; Congo Planète (French); AllAfrica (French). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Africa, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Manang Air helicopter crash[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting effects and fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of airplane accidents in Nepal. nirmal (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operational Readiness Platform[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable concept. Search only shows results for operational readiness for companies. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Transportation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term does exist, the abbreviation 'ORP' being more used. They are nothing more than widened areas of the runway at each end or just one end (for take off in to the prevailing wind). It's really a historic term that fell out of use in the RAF with the end of the V bomber force. It should be redirected to Quick Reaction Alert after some kind of mention there. The 'Q-sheds' mentioned there were literally tin sheds by the end of the runway to protect interceptor aircraft from the weather which were replaced by use of hardened aircraft shelters (the nearest ones to the runway on a typical squadron HAS site). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was struggling to identify a redirect target. I agree with your suggestion, thank you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker Siddeley HS 138[edit]

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

Never built aircraft concept. I cannot find much of anything about this design, so I do not see how an article can be sustained on it. If there are sources I am somehow missing please let me know. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not enough published info to pass WP:GNG. Also, much of what is given here is not backed up by the existing sources, even conflicts with one or two other snippets I have found, so a merge of any kind is not worth considering. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [updated 01:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)][reply]
Delete - cannot find any substantial coverage. Does not appear to have ever risen from the pages of a speculative newsletter. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rimbun Air de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a significant, noteworthy aircrash. The guidance at WP:AIRCRASH suggests this should be an entry in a larger list, nothing more. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Indonesia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Event fails WP:GNG and the event criteria. No evidence of lasting effects with no continued coverage of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the future, it would be better if you cited something else than WP:AIRCRASH as it is an essay and should not be applied in AfD nominations.

Per the consensus from the page:

By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not. If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may also be notable enough for a stand-alone article, if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports.

Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, after all I'm trainsandotherthings, not airplanesandotherthings. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOAA Flight 42[edit]

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

Barely intelligible. From what I've gathered, a Hurricane Hunters flight had an engine failure in flight during a mission, but was still able to return to base and land safely, see Hurricane hunters#Other incidents. This does not merit a separate article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Barbados, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hurricane Hugo. The subsection of NOAA Flight 42 already explains in detail what happened. I don't really think a separate article is needed.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keller Rinaudo Cliffton[edit]

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

The article has many issues for a BLP and feels like a WP:SPIP. The article already has a resume-like alert and the puffery alert (which is dated from 2021).

I would also argue that on the notability of this subject. This person's notability is not inherented to them by association with their company. The company is notable and has high quality representation in Wikipedia.

There are also a number of details that are not cited in this article and our major issue for BLP. Many of the citations also do not match facts in the source (example: cite in personal life). One source is just "Department of Construction Management & Civil Engineering" without any sort of information to detail whether this source is a publication, a website, etc.

Ew3234 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Technology, Aviation, Arizona, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment (no considered view on notability one way or the other): redirection to Zipline (drone delivery company) is surely a viable alternative to deletion. – Teratix ₵ 13:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Jetways Airlines Fokker 50 crash[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting coverage. Not notable. PROD template was removed with ZERO improvement. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to 2024 in aviation Kvng (talk · contribs) left clear feedback on why the PROD was removed; "Removed PROD tag: Deletion contested, consider merge or redirect to 2024 in aviation as preferred WP:ATD". They clearly felt that was better than having an article deleted and you should take their advice rather than dismissing it as 'zero improvement' because they obviously feel the same in that it shouldn't be its own article. Edit summaries are not there to just test your typing and should be read, not dismissed. Nate • (chatter) 20:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it. Even if you merge some of the content, this SHOULD be deleted.

Edit summaries are not there to just test your typing and should be read, not dismissed

I know what edit summaries do. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 20:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — routine coverage without lasting effects so NOTNEWS. I have no objection to merging/redirecting the article. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 20:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Delete'~~: as nom. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 20:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate vote It is assumed by your nomination you're asking for deletion, and you cannot vote twice. Nate • (chatter) 20:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrSchimpf Now I'm not socking am I? It's just a reinstatement of my opinion. Editors do this all of the time. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have unstruck it, and will only strike it back when I get a third opinion. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted; we do not allow duplicate votes, and the third opinion will agree (and I certainly did not accuse you of socking). Do not do this again, and assume good faith. Nate • (chatter) 22:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you did. I said I wasn't. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 22:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The third opinion agreed with me. Let's keep this unstruck. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 18:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete as nom" !votes are common, I see no reason to strike this (and have thus unstruck it). Rosbif73 (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate votes (and triple votes, etc.) are always struck. Your deletion nomination is your "vote". We don't allow duplicate votes at any deletion discussions. This is common knowledge for editors who regularly participate at AFDs. Do not "unstrike" it. This has nothing to do with sockpuppetry it's because nominators are not allowed to vote twice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw it's a !vote thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 14:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to 2024 in aviation as per original response to the PROD. No evidence of lasting coverage but a redirect could still be useful as this incident did get coverage in primary sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a summary of the crash is already on 2024 in aviation but there's nothing to merge as mentions on the year in aviation are always kept brief. A redirect would not be useful, and indeed non-notable crashes are often removed from the year in aviation pages. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No point in redirecting to 2024 in aviation if in the end the topic doesn't have an article.

Fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED. WP:NOTNEWS. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect not necessary as a fairly unlikely search term. Lacking significant coverage in secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think it would be better to have it be a merge/redirect due to it being notable enough to be on 2024 in aviation but not notable enough for its own article mainly due to its lack of coverage outside of some sources. IDKUggaBanga (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to weigh Deletion vs. a Merge/Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also would have PROD this, non-notable incident. Little to no coverage, very little long-term effects. Oaktree b (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even redirecting to 2024 in aviation won't help. Has no significant coverage from secondary sources. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Russian Aerospace Forces Antonov An-26 crash[edit]

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

Fails GNG and EVENTCRIT. Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting effects. No recent news on the topic so fails both CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The crash catches my attention because it it doesn't sound like a "normal" accident. To me it sounds the plane was shot out of the sky or blown up either accidentally or on purpose. Anyway, both ways, that would make it plausible that Russia tries to cover it up. Due to the contoversies and because I think it would be a shame if this information would be lost, I vote Weak keep. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the plane were shot down, then the accident doesn't exactly warrant an article as it has already been mentioned in: List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War and List of Russian military accidents.

Even then, the fact that there hasn't been any news related to this accident since 2022 already fails, as I've said, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED.

The event fails WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE as most sources were covered by russian media outlets and didn't receive significant or in-depth coverage to be considered notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the argument on losing the information is pretty weak per WP:LOSE as this article already fails multiple guidelines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, instead of deleting: merge and redirect to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War#Russian aircraft losses might be the best option. I would propose stating there (including removing the current "cashed" typo):
Registration number RF-36074 crashed in Uryv-Pokrovka, Voronezh Oblast. The aircraft exploded in the air and fell between three villages. Fragments of the wreck scattered of over a large area.^[1] According to the Ministry of Defense, the preliminary cause was equipment failure.^[2] According to eyewitnesses the cause was possibly a shell hit.^[3] All of the undisclosed number of occupants were killed, consisting of crew members and paratroopers.^[3] Usually this type of aircraft has six crew members.^[1]
82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like, judging from other entries in the article, that we should follow the same style therefore I would suggest keeping the entry as it is:

Registration number RF-36074 cashed in Voronezh Oblast, killing an undisclosed number of occupants. Allegedly caused by a technical malfunction. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a non-established style should never be regarded as more important than the quality of the prose or an inhibition of content. Note the current Russian state owned Tass source has an interest and might be unreliable. The sources I use are more journalistic and not one-sided. (And what I said, don’t keep the typo :) ) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information is already there and it needs to be kept simple. I do agree with replacing the typo. I'm suggesting the following:

Registration RF-36074 crashed in Voronezh Oblast, killing an undisclosed number of occupants. Preliminary reports indicate a technical malfunction.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b "Транспортник прошел между селами" [Transporter passed between the villages]. Kommersant (in Russian). 2022-02-25. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.
^ "В Воронежской области потерпел крушение самолет Ан-26" [An-26 plane crashed in Voronezh region]. Mir 24 (in Russian). February 24, 2022. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.
^ ^a ^b "В Воронежской области упал самолет Су-25" [A Su-25 plane crashed in the Voronezh region]. vrntimes (in Russian). 25 February 2022. Retrieved 15 April 2024.

Comment I tried to improve the article with these edits. I expanded the article (among others witnesses reports, noted there were paratroopers onboard and the number of crew members) and added an extra source. However, this was reverted by Lachielmao (talk · contribs). 82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify I had no issue with the new content and sources added, but there was speculation used without a source as well as rewriting sections with worse grammar and writing prose. Lachielmao (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lachielmao: I don't understand why you say I added speculations without a source. See here the version after I expanded it. Everything was well referenced. (Bye the way, it sounds ambiguous when you're saying "I had no issue with the new content and sources added" because you removed it.) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be preferable if you discussed this on the talk page instead of this page as this is a discussion on whether to keep or delete the article, not to talk about whether or not these edits should be included. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per nom, this fails WP:SUSTAINED, and this crash doesn't seem to be any more notable than the many Russian aircraft crashes listed in the List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War that don't have their own article, so we should just merge the basic information about the crash there. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates and Partners[edit]

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

Unclear that notability has been established. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Belgium, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the available coverage falls well within WP:ORGTRIV. I was not able to find anything more substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Kennedys Law into which Gates was dissolved. Why wasn't this suggested upfront? gidonb (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Proposed deletions[edit]

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

2024_Jetways_Airlines_Fokker_50_crash (via WP:PROD on 10 April 2024)

Aviation-related Images and media for Deletion[edit]

The following aviation-related IfD's are currently open for discussion: None at present

Aviation-related Miscellany for deletion[edit]

The following aviation-related MfD's are currently open for discussion:

Aviation-related Templates for Deletion[edit]

The following aviation-related TfD's are currently open for discussion: None at present

Aviation-related Categories for Discussion[edit]

The following aviation-related CfD's are currently open for discussion:

None currently

Aviation-related Deletion Reviews[edit]

The following aviation-related Deletion reviews are currently open for discussion: None at present

[kommer-1] "Транспортник прошел между селами" [Transporter passed between the villages]. Kommersant (in Russian). 2022-02-25. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.

[2] "В Воронежской области потерпел крушение самолет Ан-26" [An-26 plane crashed in Voronezh region]. Mir 24 (in Russian). February 24, 2022. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.

[VRN-3] "В Воронежской области упал самолет Су-25" [A Su-25 plane crashed in the Voronezh region]. vrntimes (in Russian). 25 February 2022. Retrieved 15 April 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]