Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surviving aircraft

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The result was Result is keep based on two things: 1) nominator has withdrawn the nom, and 2) WP:SNOW. Apologies to anyone who thinks this is a coi since I voiced a comment in the discussion...this seems rather a foregone conclusion, though. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving aircraft

I am also nominating the following related pages:

These articles seem entirely non-notable. Most of these aircraft had hundred or thousands (e.g. 18,482 Liberators, 15,686 P-47s) individual aircraft built. Indeed these lists thus have potential to be thousands of items long! The articles also fail to establish why the surviving ones are notable. Perhaps if only a few models had been manufactured, a list such as these would be viable. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The claim about the lists being potentially very long is wrong. The survivors are notable because comparatively few have survived, and those that survived have had considerable time and money invested in their restoration – which in turn often leads to the soft of coverage in reliable sources that would pass the general notability guideline. The survivors are historical artefacts and the subject of considerable fascination by many people. In the same way that some people enjoy collecting guns, others enjoy collecting military aircraft. --Eastmain (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fascinating" and "notable" are not the same thing. Any relevant information pertaining to restoration and amateur hobbyists belongs in the main article; or, perhaps Legacy of the Boeing B-17, etc. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These aircraft are notable because there are so few of them remaining of many that were manufactured. The survivors are all pretty much well documented in third party publications and thus meet Wikipedia:Notability criteria. Most are museum or similar preserved aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being well-documented doesn't mean the thing is notable, it just means it is verifiable. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Being well-documented in reliable sources is the definition of notable. --NellieBly (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it really isn't. You are talking about "verifiability". Paris Hilston's fashion is well-documented by reliable sources, but I wouldn't call her wardrobe or her new haircut notable. Certain extinct species that have only one or two fossils remaining, with very little else known, are very under-documented, but certainly notable. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. A list of surviving 737s would be useless since there are so many of them, but many not in 100 years. As long as we are talking about older aircraft like this, the articles make perfect sense and seem to be exactly what Wikipedia is for. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have failed to address the central issue: the articles do not assert notability, and the best we can likely do is come up with a borderline claim to notability for this. All we have now is "there are fewer of these than there used to be". The same is true for believers in Ra, but we wouldn't create a list of all Ra believers, we would only create a list of the notable Ra believers. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't fail anything. The importance of the aircraft is reflected in their standard articles, and the fact that they are notable by themselves isn't at issue, as each has an article. Reading the primary articles will also make it clear. The only issue at hand is if an article listing the existing ones is noteworthy, which they are because of the age and limited numbers left, per my previous statement. Most other editors already "got this" without me having to spell this out. Didn't realize some you wouldn't. My comment and !vote stands. PHARMBOY (TALK) 10:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The aircraft model is notable, yes. But the individuals listed here are not notable, and the ones that are should be in a category Category:Surviving Boeing B-17s, etc. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is your opinion, which many others disagree with. You can stop bludgeoning everyone else for having a different opinion now. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am responding to everyone whose arguments I disagree with. It is important that all concerns are addressed, both mine and theirs. Theirs I address, but, for the most part, my concern of notability has not been addressed. I haven't attacked anyone personally and, in fact, I think I'm keeping a pretty cool head considering I have been attacked personally at least ~~two~~ three times during this discussion. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No one has attacked you, but not everyone appreciates having their opinions (which were not directed to you personally) picked apart. Not everyone needs to be told why their opinion is "wrong". And sometimes, you don't have to have the last word. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very regretfully delete. Yes, it's interesting (to those of us who love these machines) and a lot of love and care has been put into these articles, but at the end of the day, this material simply isn't encyclopedic in nature. Most articles on aircraft types contain a mention of notable preserved airframes, but I think that detailed lists of each and every surviving example of a type, the compilation of which borders on WP:OR, are beyond Wikipedia's scope. Wikipedia is not a memorial for aircraft any more than it is for people. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There may have been thousands of them at one time - but those numbers are now finite. There are but ~45 B-17s intact out of 12K plus. Of 18K B-24s, even fewer survived. I believe the number of B-25s is around 80. About the only "warbirds" that keep increasing in number are P-51s and Spitfires. And for all the 737s built, their day will come,too, although I don't recommend trying to list them while they are still in production and service. I would certainly say that surviving Constellations are notable. IMHO. Mark Sublette (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting that these aircraft are notable entirely due to their present-day scarcity? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion this needs to be split into seperate AfDs, possibly even one for article. Personally I group them into four groups and my opinion differs on each group. If other people's opinion varies depending on article then a single AfD isn't really suitable. My views are as follows:
- B-17 and B-29: Strong Keep. Both of these articles list notable survivors which have their own wikipedia entry. A list of these survivors plus those other survivors which, while notable, may not be worthy of their own page is IMO definitely worth keeping. In this context I have no problem with a list of 'other (not notable) survivors' although I think the lists could be better formatted.
- B-24, A-20, P-38, B-25 and P-47: Weak Keep. As notable WW2 aircraft I'm sure some of the surivors will be notable enough for their own write up, similar to B-17 and B-29, either due to the notability of their service career or due to being a still flying example as these will often get coverage from air shows etc. As articles that are likely to reach the standard of the first two with a little bit of time and effort I think they should probably be kept.
- B-47, A-26: Neutral. As more modern aircraft I'm more concerned about finding individual notable examples. Fewer are likely to have a notable service career and even if still flying they're less likely to have recieved significant coverage as IMO there's less interest in aircraft of this age. If such coverage can be found for a signifcant number of survivors then they should be kept for the above rationalle but I'm not sure it will be.
- B-52: Delete. As an aircraft that's still in service I don't see how 'survivors' are notable.

Dpmuk (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually only the H-models are still in use. All other variants are retired, and because of treaties, the early birds that were NOT preserved have been scrapped. Therefore, the surviving A-G models are notable, IMHO. Mark Sublette (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also think that breaking this up into individual AfDs is a good idea, since I think you're right about there being different degrees of notability implicit in these articles.

However, I'm not really convinced about the notability of even many of the preserved B-17s and B-29s (even some of those with their own articles). Just being a museum exhibit doesn't indicate notability, and detailed treatment of these as individual airframes (rather than as examples of a type) seems to be lacking in secondary sources. Some of these articles are little more than pastiches of warbirdregistry.org, a specialist site devoted to documenting this type of artifact. I don't know that Wikipedia needs to duplicate this. This is exactly the sort of material that we have External Links for - "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy" (WP:EL). --Rlandmann (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fair point. I probably should have said that the above was more my first feelings than an in depth analysis and that I was using it to show why I wasn't happy with this being dealt with as one AfD rather than it being my final opinion (hence the lack of bold). Dpmuk (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or create separate articles - Merge to a section (with summary) within each main aircraft type article page. Give any survivors that are independently notable their own page and link them from these sections. Categorise individual articles in a main category, and create subcategories for proper grouping (probably some of this already exists). Articles of this nature aren't particularly encyclopaedic, and it will be difficult to establish notability for articles of these titles - remember that the reliable sources have to refer to the article subject. The articles as they are are pretty much indiscriminate collections of information, by the way. Brilliantine (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, that's where most of these came from; a section in the article on the aircraft type in question. Once they started to be expanded to include any and every surviving airframe, they were (mercifully!) broken out into separate articles. If these are to be merged back whence there came, there needs to be some discussion about how many and/or which "survivors" are notable enough to mention in the main article on (say) the B-17 (which is very long as it is!) --Rlandmann (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure people can sum things up in a couple of paragraphs, link independently notable examples, and maybe quickly point out that there are thirty or forty (or however-many) partial or complete airframes scattered around the country. All it needs is a couple of people to keep an eye on the articles. There's no way these articles can stand as they are - it looks clumsy and the articles are more the kind of data you would expect in a database than an encyclopedia. Brilliantine (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"more the kind of data you would expect in a database than an encyclopedia" - I think that hits the nail exactly on the head. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Most of these aircraft are rare and/or notable examples. Even the B-52, where all of the 744 A-H models were built and the only still serving aircraft are fewer than 100 H models. --rogerd (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rare" is irrelevant here. What makes you say that most of the airframes on these lists are notable? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, that is, it is irrelevant. Many of these aircraft have been been meticulously restored and are displayed in museums. This is important information to aviation and military enthusiasts, just as much as lists of tall buildings are to architecture buffs and lists of paintings are to art lovers. --rogerd (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - that was a poor choice of words on my part - allow me to clarify. "Rare" is irrelevant to deciding whether Wikipedia should keep this article or not; it's just not a criterion for inclusion. On the other hand, notability (as defined by policy) surely is, which is why I asked on what grounds you're asserting that most of the airframes on these lists are notable. "Importance" is a criterion for exclusion, but only insofar as it can be measured by "notability"; the presumption is that if a subject is notable (therefore important), there will be independent secondary sources that give a treatment of it beyond simply noting its existence. I don't think that's the case with most of the airframes listed in these articles, but would be very happy to be proven wrong.

The comparison you make to buildings or paintings is a little bit off-target; buildings and paintings are (generally) one-of-a-kind objects; these are all surviving examples of aircraft were mass-produced and of a type that is already treated in-depth in an article of its own. However, even when a famous artist has produced multiple prints of a work, we don't include lists of each and every one of those prints.

PS: I would consider myself an "aviation enthusiast", and while I agree with you that this information is important and fascinating, I'm just not convinced that it fits within the scope of an encyclopedia (as opposed to a specialist monograph or website or database). --Rlandmann (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question. Can editors comment on whether this should be split up into 11 separate AfDs? An admin could do that if there is general support. (This was asked at the Administrators' Noticeboard). EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly acceptable to split it, or to keep them as is. One option would be to sort them by importance, then decide where the cut-off should be. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support such a split. And if split, maybe the nom would consider not relisting them all simultaneously, but maybe deal with them one at a time, beginning with what they feel to be the least notable example? --Rlandmann (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The basic premise was false as this Afd result is likely to show. Rewarding that error with a consolation prize of potentially deleting some articles would be wrong. If the nominator wants to try to establish notability guidelines under which the creation of these types of lists should operate, he should do it himself first, perhaps at WP:AVIATION, then if he gets anywhere, he can bring any articles he thinks still fail that established consensus to Afd. If he doesnt get anywhere, then he can nominate articles individualy at will. But trying to determine the consensus on the issue by raising individual Afd's first is just a waste of effort, likely only to result in reactionary keeps, but this is sadly too often typical of the way wikipedia tries to treat such issues. MickMacNee (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Keep for all. These are all verifiable to multiple independent reliable sources. It doesn't matter if ANYTHING is rare or fascinating or not rare or not fascinating: multiple notices by reliable independent sources is the guideline's definition of "notable". This is how articles on items not popular with tech-savvy educated white American males get deleted far too often on Wikipedia: editors confuse "I don't like it" or "it's stupid because it isn't part of my eminently superior world" with "it's not notable". This may be one of the few times that something more popular with white American males than with other groups who are considered less notable [edit] is deleted, but deletion would still not be in accordance guidelines or policy. --NellieBly (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the problem right there - there simply aren't "multiple notices by reliable independent sources" for any but a few entries on these lists. By-and-large, these are lists pieced together from various self-published websites. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about not liking aircraft, mainly because I do like them. As Rlandmann says, only a few of these have multiple source. You should discuss the matter at hand; it is unfair and irrelevant to attack what you perceive as my hidden agenda. (Also, I am not a "tech-savvy educated white American male".) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prune/Merge on individual article basis - As stated by Rlandmann, most of the entries are not notable on their own, or are not cited from reliable sources. Each article should be pruned of those entries. If the list notable remaining items is too long to be merged back in to the main aircraft articles, then the survivors page should be kept, provided the article format is updated to current WP and WP:AIR policies and guidelines, including titles and captions. In order to do this right, it is neccessarry to consider each article separately. That should probably be done in separate AFDs for each article, in order to have the force of consenus behind the decisions taken, given that the creator of most of these articles has strong ownership issues. Finally, there are wiki-style websites that can host these articles in their entirety, with very little change to the articles required, so that the creator's hours of hard work will not be "destroyed". - BillCJ (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination's point about the size of the original production runs seems irrelevant. These survivors are notable by virtue of this status and articles about them seem fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep Without commenting on the current state of particular lists with regard to size, content or sources, the assertion that the topic of list of surviving aircraft is "entirely non-notable" based purely on the fact that the original aircraft might have been common, is patent nonsense. That is true for standalone lists and lists in articles. "Rare" - (read historic) aircraft, after a certain age, are inherently notable, no matter what the original production run size. You can debate the inclusion criteria or sourceing requirements for each particular model, or even create a guideline at WP:AVIATION, but the deletion rationale as presented can only be dealt with by a heavy blow from the clue stick. MickMacNee (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second part of my argument was "The articles also fail to establish why the surviving ones are notable." How about a "list of medieval swords"? These things are old and there are less now than there used to be. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even have a clue as to whether this strawman you serve up is even a remotely similar comparison? I have no clue as to how many medieval swords there are that still exist, or what is known about them. Heck, a List of surviving medival swords might even educate me a tiny little bit. But can we please stick to discussing this article? MickMacNee (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like too much of a strawman to me. It seems more like a relatively valid analogy. Brilliantine (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying he is an expert in medieval swords then. MickMacNee (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does anyone being an expert in anything have to deal with this? It was addressing the logic of your 'inherent notability' claim: ""Rare" - (read historic) aircraft, after a certain age, are inherently notable, no matter what the original production run size." Brilliantine (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What analogy am I supposed to be drawing here? That there is no List of medieval swords? Quite clearly a strawman. Unless he has some expert knowledge to confer about medieval swords such as there are currently 1 million still in existence despite being made in medieval times, then I would have zero problem making the same claim for swords either. It seems at face value a perfectly fine example of something that would be automatically worthy of note after a certain point in time. And if there are so many left it would pointless to note them, then what point was he trying to make? Clearly in that case, they would not be considered 'rare'. MickMacNee (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that not all medieval swords (nor all things old&rare) are inherently notable. "This sword was made in 1033. It was never used in battle, and was found in an armory in 1949. It is now housed at the British Museum of History." — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think from the overwhelming majority of the people voting to keep the Survivors seriers I think the nomination for deletion can be quickly removed from all of these articles - I wish to thank all those editors for their fine comments (even those editors which I often disagree with - but these is often two sides to an arguement) I just wonder why a person who has only created articles on Canadian films and Canadian Hockey is interested in deleting 15 stronge articles about aviation. I agree that some of the articles need work, but I am only one editor who has limited amout of time each to work on these articles - again thanks to all for you support Davegnz (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a strange ad hominem to throw out there. I have only edited Canadian music and Canadian hockey articles? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Colonel Warden, etc. Edward321 (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm generally impressed with these articles; a lot of work has been put into many of them, including pictures and plenty of information for each aircraft. I don't really see how having these articles is detrimental to wikipedia in any way.Erudy (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Can't see a single reason for even considering deletion. The topics are encyclopedic, the material is verifiable and well presented, there's too much of it to consider a merge. Andrewa (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Keep~~ Delete all - I quit, tired of all this fighting and other nonsense - I have wasted too many long hours fighting about minor garbage issues (like what goes into captions, should the cpations be centered, is a list of survivors acceptable in wikipedia, what is notable, what deserves to be linked, length of article naming articles and now mass deletions by a music critic). I really wish I had never heard of wikipedia and I wish I had never started investing my time and efforts bringing a passion and deep interest to wikipedia. Over the past 18 months I have fought tooth and nail to get my ideas across only to have constant bickering thrown my way.
- Rlandmann Please, Just delete all my work and let my ideas die peacefully - my words have bled enough - just put them out of there misery Davegnz (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Declined; Other editors have added material to the articles, so an author requested deletion is not possible. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate articles. Encyclopedic topics, well done lists. (Actually, I think there are so few surviving early 11th c. swords that a list of them might be appropriate also, though not at article of every individual one. Though--even so-- for those in good museums, there will be published sources for each individual one. )DGG (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a general term, I've found articles like this unexpectedly useful - I used the survivors list for the Me109 to track down the specific details of the subject of a photograph that was on FPC a couple of weeks back. The topic certainly seems of practical, if esoteric, interest and utility. Shimgray | talk | 20:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article is one of the most valuable on the entire site. There is really no reason to delete pages like this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reconsider deleting these articles, with a strong recommendation to restructure them, particularly to de-emphasize the non-notable airframes. The following: "B-17G-95DL c/n 32359 44-83718, Converted: B-17H, redesignated: SB-17G, ex-Brazilian AF (5408), ex-6th Grupo de Aviaçao (SAR), " 8 ", Museu Aerospacial, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (R)" means very little, especially when repeated for 30+ airframes, without any prose. I would be glad to help in discussing alternative ways to present these articles. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good man. I suggest you wander over to WP:AVIATION and suggest a guideline. MickMacNee (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the relevant WikiProject is WikiProject Aircraft, and you're very welcome to participate in such a discussion. Outside eyes are good! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the preservation of airframes is an exercise in preserving history, the historic assets are inherently notable, and thus inherently encyclopedic. (And yes, I would think that a list of historic, surviving notable swords in museums around the world would be encyclopedic, as well.) (Oh, and I, for one, appreciate all of User:Davegnz's really hard, dedicated work to make this a better encyclopedia.) AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Since Twas Now likes to talk about useless articles and lack ot notibility I think he might have a point - I recommend someone nominate the following articles for deletions (since I do not want to considered a vandal):

New York Islanders records

Boston Bruins records

Anaheim Ducks records

Atlanta Thrashers records

Kanada-malja

Colorado Avalanche records

Player salaries in the National Hockey League

- I mean give me a break - no photographs, very little reference material, most of this information is lifted right off the official NFL web page (which is updated everyday during the season), definitly not notible, not historic, not encyclopedic, except for some hocky fans these pages are useless - if they are not a canidate for deletions then maybe someone can restructure them and get rid of all the useless infomation.

- In fact I think these article might be a strong canidite to merge back into the main articles. Davegnz (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss what I wrote not 8 hours before you posted this? Did you not notice that I am also taking part in the ongoing discussions to rename these articles, and have been all through this AfD? Please take your bitterness somewhere else. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.