Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japan Airlines Flight 9


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Japan Airlines Flight 9

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD, totally unremarkable airline route.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 15:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 15:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete no indication of any importance or being noteworthy for a mention in Wikipedia, so hardly justifies a stand-alone article for one of thousands of unremarkable scheduled flights. MilborneOne (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete should have been speedy. Rhadow (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Run of the mill airline flight. KGirl  (Wanna chat?) 17:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Crash and burn.... I mean Delete, nothing to see here. No sources here either.47.208.20.130 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete this is just a WP:MILL route; there's nothing unusual about it. Specifically, it's not about a crash or other disastrous event that occurred on that route. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, per all the above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I tend to be nice to aviation articles, but this serves no encyclopedic purpose. It's just a regular un-extraordinary flight. --Oakshade (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ground aircraft - Delete - not fit for purpose on Wikipedia. Doesn't meet GNGs and is another bog-standard flight. Can this go as an WP:A7 CSD?  G R '' (Contact me) (See my edits) 01:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I had expected this to be about an airline disaster or something of note. Unfortunately, this article could be one of any million articles about an entirely unremarkable route. Not only is this flight unremarkable, it makes no claim of significance either. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A7 as no sources to back up the claims, not even from a Google search. ToThAc (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A flight is not a real person, animal, organisation, band, web content or event so A7 does not apply. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As Ritchie333 says, speedy deletion is not an option (outside of IAR), so AfD is the appropriate route.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.