Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft bluebook


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 09:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Aircraft bluebook

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP: NCORP. In particular, fails WP:AUD because all sources are niche aviation industry publications. My own searching failed to find any WP:RS that were not aviation industry specific. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. First of all, the nomination is misguided over NCORP. The article is not about a particular organisation, it is about a type of price guide from assorted publishers. NCORP does not apply.  The book Aircraft Finance has a 3-page section entitled "Aircraft Bluebook Values" giving a comparison of bluebooks which shows that the article subject is notable.  An issue of Flying magazine devotes a full page to the most widely-accepted bluebook.  The magazine claim they are the "world's most widely read aviation magazine", so are clearly aiming at a wide audience (whether or not the claim is true) thus countering WP:AUD. SpinningSpark 17:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely a book titled, Aircraft Finance and Flying Magazine qualify as industry-specific publications and thus, media of limited interest, which WP:AUD talks about. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem not to have read my rationale. WP:AUD is specifically about organizations and companies.  It does not apply to an article about a type of book.  You also WP:IDHT when I said I thought Flying was aimed at a general audience.  It wouldn't matter if it wasn't; WP:AUD does not apply anyway.  You're entitled to your opinion, but please respect those of others enough to actually read and digest them. SpinningSpark 20:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I did read it. Perhaps I didn't explain my response to it very well :-)  I'm of the opinion that WP:AUD (even though it appears as part of the WP:NCORP page) applies, or at least should apply, more broadly than to WP:NCORP.  In any case, let's not quibble about which WP:SHORTCUT I've cited.  My core argument is that this isn't notable because it's only of interest to a very focused audience, i.e. the aviation industry.  There's catalogs that list estimated prices for comic books, rare stamps, pokemon cards, used boats, used farm machinery, etc, etc, etc.  Surely these are not all notable.  So, what makes the idea of a compendium of used aircraft prices notable?  Of course Flying Magazine is going to cover it.  The fact that they do doesn't make it notable.  That's the gist of what WP:AUD is trying to say, and my assertion is that this shouldn't be restricted to just the things covered by WP:NCORP.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It may be your opinion that we should not have articles "only of interest to a very focused audience" but that certainly isn't policy. If it were, it would be found in WP:NOT.  1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + ⋯, a featured article, is of interest mainly to mathematicians.  To say nothing of articles like Meissel–Mertens constant. Distributed element filter, another featured article, is of interest only to electronic engineers, and a small sub-group of them at that.  I could go on.  Wikipedia has articles on many obscure subjects, but obscurity is not grounds for deletion.  Nor is the specialisation of the sources.  I could list numerous FAs and GAs using only very niche, specialised sources.  The requirement is only that those sources are reliable and cover the topic in-depth. SpinningSpark</b> 22:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I will think on this, but for the moment, I'm still thinking this should be deleted.  Let's see what other's think.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep a very low-quality article, but on a notable topic (and that topic isn't an organization) - note this book. It might be reasonable to rename to Aircraft valuation, I'm not enough of an expert to have a strong recommendation on that. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

<div style="margin: auto 2em; border: 1px dashed #AAAAAA; padding: 4px; background-color: white; padding-left: 1em;"> References
 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG having received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Furthermore, WP:AUD just does not apply to literature, nor to anything other than companies and organizations. See below for some source examples. North America1000 07:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.