- 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 keep. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 14:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of preserved Boeing aircraft ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It duplicates the content on the main article pages. (e.g. Boeing 707) Dedicated aircraft on display articles are only created for single types when the list becomes too long for the main article. The list also includes pictures, which runs counter to the WikiProject:Aviation style guide.
- Subsequent to the creation of this AfD, I discovered there is an additional article created by the same user at: List of preserved McDonnell Douglas aircraft. – Noha307 ( talk) 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 4. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 05:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Virginia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The linked "No images should be included in lists of aircraft, this is not what lists are for." is one of the strangest things I've seen here. All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here? What lists does this refer to specifically? I can imagine for certain large lists you wouldn't want excessive pictures that look similar and add little, but I don't see a need to apply that here; that is not a justification for deletion. Where you're talking about individual aircraft that are preserved and on display for people to see, showing everyone here who can't go to all these museums what they look like is a great idea! While I agree that duplication with the bullet-point lists in the main article is not great, I think a list that can include additional details like useful pictures – or at least be a central navigation page – can be reasonable. Keep
Reywas92
Talk
17:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here?
- It increases the file size of the page. However, it also unnecessarily increases the height of each row of the table and reduces the width of the other cells, which makes the table longer and the legibility of information more difficult as the text is wrapped onto multiple lines. However, these are my own reasons. There's a bit more in a section on the talk page of the style guide.
- It's worth noting that a number of the images don't show the aircraft on display, but in service, which is not appropriate or useful for a list of this type.
that is not a justification for deletion
- Agreed. In and of itself, it is not a justification for deletion. However, it is something that adds weight against it. –
Noha307 (
talk)
01:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have any size concerns here, nor issues with the length of the table or column/text width. Even if the retired craft on display is preferred, I would not remove images of service. Reywas92 Talk 01:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment this list appears to be missing the 707 Air Force One as noted at Air Force One#Boeing 707s and entry to jet age. No opinion on whether this should be kept or not, but that seems a strange omission. Jclemens ( talk) 18:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Nom and Reywas95 both make valid points. That said, the concerns with the article do not warrant deletion. Rather, improvements are welcome. In this respect, I wonder if it would be possible to create shared sections (not sure on the WP jargon) that can both fit into the model articles and into this article.
gidonb (
talk)
00:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is that it duplicates information that already exists. There's no need for a separate article listing preserved aircraft unless they are too long for the main article and if that is the case, then it should be broken down by airplane model, not manufacturer. You could argue WP:MERGE into main articles or separate into dedicated articles each models instead of deleting it. However, in the latter case a) certain aircraft would not have sufficient numbers of entries for a dedicated article and b) that would make the manufacturer just a list of links that could be replaced by a category. – Noha307 ( talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I had already identified and addressed this problem in my opinion above. Others have addressed it as well.
gidonb (
talk)
23:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Could you explain in a bit more detail what you meant by "shared sections"? Do you mean some sort of
transcluded template?
Noha307 (
talk)
04:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. That would be it. gidonb ( talk) 23:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Could you explain in a bit more detail what you meant by "shared sections"? Do you mean some sort of
transcluded template?
Noha307 (
talk)
04:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- This article does not warrant deletion I guarantee to you. Thats why I also voted my vote as a keep. Airbus A320-100 ( talk) 10:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I had already identified and addressed this problem in my opinion above. Others have addressed it as well.
gidonb (
talk)
23:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Split to individual aircraft types. These manufacturer-based lists are problematic because they either end up duplicating the information in the article on the type, or they are incomplete because they omit types that have only a couple of surviving examples which are adequately covered on the main article on the type. It looks like the anonymous editor creating these manufacturer-based lists was also recently involved in a bad-faith PROD of an aircraft type article. It would be good for the folks involved in creating and maintaining lists of preserved aircraft could generate some consensus on thesholds of when to split from type articles, and also agree not to create manufacturer lists like this one. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 00:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Why does the list only cover Boeing 7x7's? Boeing made many other aircraft types, so shouldn't they be covered in the list is kept?
Mjroots (
talk)
07:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, yeah. This arbitrariness is another argument against these manufacturer-based lists IMHO. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Now I've updated the article to be based on other aircraft Boeing series aircraft, not just 7x7's 220.244.141.72 ( talk) 06:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - per @Reywas92 and @gidonb 220.244.141.72 ( talk) 05:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - per @ 220.244.141.72, @Reywas92 and @gidonb Airbus A320-100 ( talk) 10:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I found a few sources to justify WP:LISTN through a quick google search. From the nom's perspective, I can understand how the article as written was focusing on the 707's. But AfD is not cleanup. Conyo14 ( talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – Meets LISTN and works better as a collection rather than splitting into separate lists for each aircraft series/type. Sounder Bruce 05:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Reywas92. Zakaria ښه راغلاست ( talk) 00:25, 18 June 2024 (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.