Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation

Points of interest related to Aviation on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

1. 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.
2. 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

Asteria Aerospace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:CORPTRIV. References are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 18:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Aviation, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taquan Air Flight 20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per failure of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE fairly unknown incident with little to no continued coverage. lolzer3k (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Alaska. lolzer3k (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:58, 2 May 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 May 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained non-routine continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident, and during the release of the preliminary report. 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) 15:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This isn't a WP:CASESTUDY or any type of historical event that's being revisited by secondary sources. Just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak redirect to either Taquan Air § Accidents and incidents or de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver § Accidents and incidents, where the accident is mention in these sections. Looking at the existing sources, I can see some chunks of WP:N-passing, such as decent WP:SIGCOV. However, the fact that much of the article qualifies for the fifth criteria for WP:PRIMARY and lacking a lasting impact makes the retention of this article seemed dubious. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilker Furat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and Turkey. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Management, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Highnesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them were secondary and did not contain any significant independent coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Examples: [1] [2] [3] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Europe, and Armenia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of defunct airlines of Armenia, where I've just added an entry for the airline as it was not previously there. I'll note the article makes me raise an eyebrow as it says, and has a table stating, that the airline operated one Il-76 - but the article also has a photograph of an An-12 in the airline's markings. Hmmmm. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a search conducted in Armenian revealed several sources demonstrating WP:N. The article can be expanded/improved. Archives908 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you link those sources? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2006 O'Hare International Airport runway incursion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable aviation incident with zero loss of life and no lasting coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Near-misses don't generally merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, United States of America, and Illinois. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing notable here...not even sure there's enough to add to the incidents section for O'Hare.

nf utvol (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to O'Hare International Airport § Major accidents and incidents: WP:LASTING effects and WP:SECONDARY and/or WP:RS sources are lacking in this article. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flightline Flight 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated, which is made all the more evident as the Civil Aviation Accident and Incident Investigation Commission did not issue a single recommendation as a result of this accident (Recomendaciones sobre seguridad – page 23). 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) 08:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Spain. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:News article. Not a WP:CASESTUDY or otherwise subject to any secondary coverage that indicates long-term significance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 512 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. Plus, this incident is already covered in Lists of accidents and incidents involving the Tupolev Tu-134, so there is no need to have a separate article with almost 0 new information. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Jordan, and Russia. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: I found these sources on the matter: [4], [5], [6], [7]. The sources summarize the crash and circumstances (don't talk about investigation/public response since the crash was relatively minor), and seem to be enough to source a plane crash article, but I'll wait before making a decision. LastJabberwocky (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It's a bad article at the moment, but I definitely think that it's expandable based on sources. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until such time that there's WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond real-time news. Wikipedia is not a collection of WP:News articles. Even if it were notable, there's no need for an event to have an article if it can be adequately covered in a list of similar events. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of accidents and incidents involving the Tupolev Tu-134 § 1970s: First two sources suggested above appears to be unreliable; source 3 is WP:PRIMARY, and I don't have full access to source 4 to verify. Either way, Flight 512 fails WP:NEVENT because it lacks a lasting effect. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well you maybe right on the grounds that they don't give an encyclopedia-level analysis/investigation related to the plane crash. But, at least for the bureau source, it gives enough context for the crash, and I couldn't find any support against it. It was raised in these discussions but nothing definitive: Talk:Aviation accidents and incidents#Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (B3A) and User_talk:Aviationwikiflight#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeroflot Flight 11. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IdeaForge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, profit/financial reporting, turnover news, capacity expansion news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. I am nominating this page for deletion again, as the last AfD ended without a consensus and took place over two months ago. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I came across several independent research reports like this, this and this, which critically and thoroughly cover the company. In addition to this, there is also significant critical coverage surrounding the IdeaForge drone fraud case, such as this and this. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chanel Dsouza I would like to respectfully point out that the PDF reports you shared from HEM Securities and HDFC Securities may not be entirely independent. Both documents include disclaimers on pages 6 and 17, respectively; which clearly indicate the presence of"potential or material conflicts of interest". Also, they mention that"the firms or their associates may have received compensation from the companies covered in the reports within the preceding twelve months". Indian securities reports should be viewed with some skepticism, something I realized during Senco Gold's AFD. These reports are often prepared for internal use within portfolio management services, where the firms typically hold shares in the subject companies or try to promote a particular narrative, especially around upcoming IPOs. Charlie (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I won’t vote in this deletion discussion because the nomination and my opinion are very similar to what I said in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apar_Industries. Charlie (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find coverage outside of routine business news updates that tend to be wire-style. I would agree that PDF reports from analysts are not reliable even if they are in depth as analysts often have a hidden agenda to convince people to pump or short stocks.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humming Airways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in reliable and secondary sources. WP:TOOSOON also. Bakhtar40 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Argentina. Bakhtar40 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Moderate Keep It might be seen as WP:TOOSOON but has some coverage in the media WP:BTMBS. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. There are many more websites and I am not sure which ones are actually reliable but some are reliable Argentinian news websites. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Passes in WP:NCORP. Svartner (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Express Flight 87 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. 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. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Philippines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete as recreation of deleted material; in any case this is a relatively minor accident of no interest outside of standard accident investigation, except of course for those whose shipments were damaged or lost. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Mangoe it looks like CSD doesn't apply in this case. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The aircraft was written off, and the crash was part of the record - for instance being mentioned again in articles on other crashes such as [13] [14] (those don't meet GNG for this crash, but the article meets GNG and the crash is well documented.) The previous AfD wasn't that well attended so speedy delete doesn't make sense here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The aircraft accident was caused by blockage of pitot tubes which has resulted in fatal plane accidents like Birgenair Flight 301 and Aeroperu Flight 603. Also, comparing it to the other FedEx accidents like FedEx Express Flight 630, it had more damage and more long-lasting importance. The entire plane was submerged in the Subic Bay. If you're going to delete this article, then delete almost all the FedEx accidents Wikipedia articles. They all have the same amount of notability as this one. We got plenty of sources and a full report. Plus, the accident report clearly listed recommendations and changes after this accident. The plane was also declared a hull loss with the entire plane being completely submerged and destroyed except the cockpit. Zaptain United (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:WHATABOUTX is not an argument. We evaluate the notability of events on their individual merit, not based on other articles. Just because recommendations were issued doesn't mean that they were implemented. Can you prove that the accident actually led to changes in procedures and had lasting effects? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: An event can also be notable without a lasting effect per wikipedia:EVENTCRITERIA point 2, if the event had widespread coverage, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok… and where is that re-analysis? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Here it is : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrxtQv6zUuo. Also in the report it stated on page 158, that because of this accident, Boeing revised the MD-11 Flight Crew Operating Manual to provide additional guidance to flight crews. The guidance states that if any two of the following alerts are displayed simultaneously, the crew should use these alerts as valid indications to immediately refer to the “Airspeed Lost, Suspect, or Erratic” checklist: “SEL ELEV FEEL MAN”; “SEL FADEC ALTN’; “SEL FLAP LIM OVRD.” https://web.archive.org/web/20220209071829/https://fdx.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=38G%2BwiGL7qs%3D&tabid=3202Zaptain United (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  YouTube is an unreliable source and the person who published the recreation of the event is not a subject-matter expert (see WP:SPS). Although there was a change in procedure (thank you for finding it), the coverage is still subpar and we're still lacking a secondary source which is required per WP:WHYN. Maybe as an alternative, the article could be merged into Pitot tube#Aircraft and accidents or FedEx Express#Major incidents and accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Aren't these secondary sources, that are used in the article?

  FedEx MD-11 in Subic Bay overrun | News | Flight Global

  FEDEX CREW SURVIVES CRASH CARRIER LOSES COURT ROUND | Journal of Commerce

  I thought these were secondary sources? Zaptain United (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These are all first-hand news reports of the accident so they all qualify as primary sources. Secondary sources normally containanalysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event based on primary sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a lot of information of this accident. Also, the DC-10 and MD-11 have had incidents involving anomalous airspeed indications. It was a problem affecting the aircraft like the bounce landing problem. It caused two different World Airways incidents and some minor incidents. It is clear that blockage of pitot tubes has affected those planes. What makes this accident different is that this was a hull loss and caused changes to prevent blockage of pitot tubes on Md-11 planes. I think it can stand on its own.https://web.archive.org/web/20220209071829/https://fdx.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=38G%2BwiGL7qs%3D&tabid=3202Zaptain United (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, only real-time coverage, no retrospective analysis. Wikipedia is not a collection of news articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Aren't these secondary sources, that are used in the article?

  FedEx MD-11 in Subic Bay overrun | News | Flight Global

  FEDEX CREW SURVIVES CRASH CARRIER LOSES COURT ROUND | Journal of Commerce Zaptain United (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:N, WP:V [15] [16] [17] [18] just a mention here. There are some more bits of analysis out there available. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first source only mentions the accident as part of statistics and there’s no significant coverage; the second source contains no mention of the accident; the third is a database entry so it doesn’t establish notability; the fourth is better than the rest but still does not contain significant coverage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Aviationwikiflight:, please learn what a secondary source is. All references in the nominated article are secondary sources. Aviation accident investigation bodies are indepenent of airlines and aircraft manufacturers, and are no primary sources. This applies to other articles you have nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mjroots: Per WP:SECONDARY,A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Per WP:NOTNEWS,Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. Sources 1,3,5, and 6 are all either primary or first-hand breaking news coverage of the event; sources 2 and 4 are tertiary as they're databases. None of these sources include any sort of "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" based on primary sources. There are clearly zero sources in the article that are secondary (nor in the others that I nominated). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serviços Executivos Aéreos de Angola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them were secondary and did not contain any significant independent coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Examples: [19] [20] [21] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, and Angola. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom which covered all the points. if sources in the native language (seems nothing in Portuguese also) surfaced please notify me. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chippla360: Isn’t there already a consensus to delete this article? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Aviationwikiflight, Don’t be in a hurry as a nominator, more users will drop there comments, it’s just 1 user that participated. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 23:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not in a hurry, it’s just that I don’t see why this was relisted. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]