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. 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

Pixhawk (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)

currently, there are zero in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Searches did not turn up enough to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There's lots of results in Google Books and Google Scholar. None of is enough? I could not get access to many of them, so I couldn't fully assess. MarioGom (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Sudanese Air Force Antonov An-26 crash (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)

Plane crash that fails WP:GNG. No continued coverage. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Sudan. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Typically we require LASTING coverage, but the fact this crash received major international coverage, did have continuing coverage for at least a day, crashed in a civilian area, and killed a couple high ranking army officers shows notability above and beyond a normal military plane crash, and I would expect further coverage in local sources in spite of the regional difficulties. SportingFlyer T·C 15:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are wrong, just because it killed some sudanese officers doesn't mean that its notable. There is no coverage of this event past February 28. It has no lasting coverage and clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, per SportingFlyer and it is probably too early to delete. --hroest 16:13, 6 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. Per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. The article is basically only sourced to first-hand news reports with no subsequent analysis made on the event. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage 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. Having continued coverage for at least day is really not a sign of notability, especially when the coverage doesn't provide evidence of the event's notability. And based on the currently available sourcing, a standalone page is not warranted. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See though WP:EVENTCRIT #2: Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). This was widely covered in diverse sources and had a widespread national impact with 46 people dead, mostly civilians, along with several ranking officers. This is common sense! SportingFlyer T·C 16:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Very likely to be notable" ≠ "Notable". WP:NOTNEWS also applies here. Just because an event was covered doesn’t mean it is automatically notable. "…especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." Could you point me to any sort of re-analysis? The event was tragic and was widely reported on at the time but there is no evidence of "enduring significance". Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are 20 news articles in the story from around the world, and this happened a couple months ago during a war, so it's not surprising there aren't any clearly available retrospectives that are easily found during a search. I'll keep looking though. SportingFlyer T·C 06:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until this becomes a WP:CASESTUDY or is otherwise determined by reliable sources to be worth covering beyond news reporting. A handful of people dying does not overrule the sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that is a misunderstanding of the guideline. If it becomes a case study, then it's likely notable. The guideline does not state that it needs to become a case study to be notable by other factors. MarioGom (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: in-depth and persistence coverage from multible reliable sources. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you mind linking those sources? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  already in the article from BBC to local news. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wadi Seidna Air Base, where it is covered. All sources are from within a few days of the crash itself, and the outside world seems to have moved on. Tragic as this is, planes crash in wars kill civilians and officers. The sources we have don't demonstrate any lasting effects, but I assume there will be local coverage focussing on the aircrash's impact on local affairs, that is, its impacts on the base. (Or, will? Most newspapers in Sudan have been subject to heavy government censorship since the coup, and a plane crash killing civilians is one of those events that tends to get tidied away[1]. ) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 8 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: [2] [3] [4] 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per above request, see [5], [6], [7]. A simple search yielded 22,500 results on Google. Just a matter of sifting through them to see if any more RS can be used. Will maintain my vote as keep and improve. Archives908 (talk) 17:56, 9 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]

Redirect to Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner § Accidents and incidents: This article lacks reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, and its WP:LASTING effects are also bare bones. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of secondary sources online. Per WP:NEXISTS, it does not matter if they are not used in the article. MarioGom (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There was extensive contemporary coverage in reliable sources back in the day (2001), virtually on every Spanish newspaper. There was a newspaper piece on it published in 2013, so there was sustained coverage [8]. MarioGom (talk) 17:03, 10 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. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. 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]

@HilssaMansen19, None of the sources you gave are reliable. All of them look like paid articles. Bakhtar40 (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes in WP:NCORP. Svartner (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartner, On which ground it passes WP:NCORP. Let's talk about the references. Bakhtar40 (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll try to summarize the sources:
  • [1]. Infobae appears to be significant coverage, though there is no byline on this article.
  • [2]. Humming Airways published by the subject itself, does not contribute to notability.
  • [3]. Aviacion News this is an interview with the founders, does not contribute to notability.
  • [4]. Aviacionline reads as... very promotional.
  • [5]. Villamaria Vivo this provides the reader with a helpful link to purchase an inexpensive flight. I would say this is not independent.
  • [6] InfoGEI Independent, but not significant coverage; just describes the airline's first flight in 4 sentences.
  • [7] Promociones Aereas Promotional website that provides timetables and prices for booking a flight. Not significant, independent coverage.
  • [8] Info Viajera This is just a press release with 4 sentences of introduction. Not significant, independent coverage.
• Based on this I lean delete as the sources in the article do not demonstrate significant, independent coverage from reliable sources. -- Reconrabbit 19:20, 8 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 [14] [15] (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.^[1] 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 contain analysis, 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 [16] [17] [18] [19] 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]

  That doesn't make them "primary sources". This is a bizzare reinterpretation of what "primary source" is, and it's a troubling one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not exactly a bizarre nor troubling interpretation. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS:

  [...] Most reliable sources in academia name typical contemporary newspaper stories as primary sources.
  Several academic research guides name newspaper articles written at the same time as the event as one kind of primary source.^[a] Yale University's guide to comparative literature lists newspaper articles as both primary and secondary sources, depending on whether they contain an interpretation of primary source material.^[1] Other university libraries address newspaper sources in more detail, for instance:

  • "[...] A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events".^[2]
  • "[...] A recently published journal or newspaper article on the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case would be read as a secondary source, because the author is interpreting an historical event. An article on the case that was published in 1955 could be read as a primary source that reveals how writers were interpreting the decision immediately after it was handed down".^[3]
  • "Characteristically, primary sources are contemporary to the events and people described[.] [...] In writing a narrative of the political turmoil surrounding the 2000 U.S. presidential election, a researcher will likely tap newspaper reports of that time for factual information on the events. The researcher will use these reports as primary sources because they offer direct or firsthand evidence of the events, as they first took place".^[4]
  • "[...] Traditionally, however, newspapers are considered primary sources. The key, in most cases, is determining the origin of the document and its proximity to the actual event".^[5]

  Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]