Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boeing 777X


 * 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   merge to Boeing 777. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Boeing 777X

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Content already covered by main article (Boeing 777) FonEengIneeR7 (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge. See WP:SOFTDELETE regarding this choice; it would otherwise be Keep. The 777X article may contain similar information to the 777X Program subsection, but it is presented in an entirely different format. The fact that there is a primary sources tag is also a mystery, as I count at least four in the references. It could (and should) be expanded with more information about the Dubai Air Show orders, which are recent developments. But the proper tag for this article is Merge, not Delete (because other aircraft variants are listed within their main airframe articles). New info or relevant tables like the one in 777X should be merged into the appropriate 777 section, not just trashed altogether; they add readability to what is now a bunch of dry measurements. 02:50, 18 November 2013

I dont see why aircrafts don't have their own page. I always look up a paticular aircraft but find myself having to look through long articles for the one plane. It's just a way of adding simplicity. --Ncchild (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They do. Aircraft have their own page. And variants of that specific type are covered within the specific aircraft's page. Wikipedia may not be paper, but we don't have 10 stubs for each aircraft instead of a single comprehensive page. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge. per VoxLuna. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge. per VoxLuna. I see your point. FonEengIneeR7 (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

So what should we do. I mean it's a growing article and I don't think people have a problem with it. The thing is Wikipedia has so many boundaries. I usually work in roads with NC State routes and have written about some secondary roads before which both got deleted. I'm not trying to argue I just think that yes there should be the big cumulative page but also their should be individual ones for the planes for people who want just that plane type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncchild (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "That plane type" is Boeing 777. Variants only get subpages when they have a lot to spin out - especially when they are unflown future developments. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to creating separate articles for separate versions of aircraft. In fact I'd probably support it. From someone who reads a lot of articles on aircraft but has no involvement in writing them, the decision to have only one article for each main aircraft type or separate articles for each version (Boeing 777, A380, etc.) is something that needs to be handled in part by those involved with the Aviation Wikiproject. Disassembling (or perhaps more correctly, expanding?) current articles (these long articles with all aircraft versions in one) will be an extraordinary task, and the decision to do this goes far above the fate of this single article. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge as outlined by VoxLuna. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Boeing 777 article, 777X section, i.e. Boeing 777. The 777X is better covered there and with more references.  Such a split can be done in the future if needed after reaching a consensus at Talk:Boeing 777. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont see why. This has more information then the one on the 777 page--Ncchild (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC).
 * Clearly not when I posted that 2 days ago if you check the history. The 777X article has been expanded in the last day or so and is a valid article now. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge as per VoxLuna. smileguy91talk 22:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The 777X is a major update to the 777, probably to a greater extent than those of the Boeing 737 MAX and Airbus A320neo family over their predecessors. - BilCat (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * However it's simply WP:TOOSOON. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's too soon. The 777X article can stand alonecas it is now quite well. I spent a couple of hours yesterday expanding the article to see what was possible, and it's already much larger than a stub, and well referenced. This article has already had 11,000 page views, most since Monday, which is quite good for a new article. The 777X been a success at the Dubai Air show, and garnered a lot of publicity. Given all that taken together, I think it's best to keep all the info on the 777X on it's own page now. If we do merge, I think the 777X info on the main 777 page will grow so fast that will have to split it off again in a few months or less, and that seems like wasted effort to me. - BilCat (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Page views are up to 15,000 now (Saturday morning U S time). Also, 777X article is about 80% the size of the 737MAX and A320neo articles. - BilCat (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per . →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  02:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per . JJ98 (Talk) 05:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Boeing 737 Classic has its own article, the same goes for the 737NG and 737MAX. A320NEO followed the same path. At this moment it might not have too much information but, this will increment as time goes by. Alainmoscoso (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)-Found this on the talk page--Ncchild (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per other articles such as Boeing 747-400 and Boeing 747-8 and many other variants have their own articles. Baseball   Watcher  22:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per VoxLuna. Steel1943  (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a significant development of the aircraft which deserves an article of its own, like the Boeing 747-400 or Boeing 747-8. Challisrussia (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2013 (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.