Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator - -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An indiscriminate list of aircraft still in existance. This is Not what wikipedia is for. Listing the survivors of any set of aircraft just does not seem encylopedic. Where is the line drawn, for example a list of Cessna 172 survivors, would that be encylopedic? Would we list every old atari in existance, or any other old item that is approaching extinction? Sure, an article on this aircraft is 100 percent appropriate, a shrine to its existance with every aircarft still in existance is not. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 *  Been told by many people that lists are not encyclodedic - Suggest that everyone take a jump to The Who discography -its a sub-article off of The Who and this type of article is acceptable under this group - in a form simular to what I have developed. Lets try The Rolling Stones discography and List of Beatles songs by singer and John Denver discography and The Smashing Pumpkins discography and Pearl Jam discography books Books about Stephen King and List of Ben & Jerry's flavors.

All of these subject are easily avaible on the internet, yet editors have felt that placing the knowledge of these albums and songs is part of the rich tapestry that is wikipedia - all of these articles are lists with some reference/links added (And they have been openly accepted as a correct type of format for an encyclopedia). Since these types are acceptable - than my articles (as created) need a home on wikipedia as well Davegnz 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this satisfy you are do you want more? Have loads of third party references Davegnz 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not told anybody that lists are unencylopedic. There is a fine line.  A list of popular bands discography is alot different than a list of every single aircraft of one type left in existence, notable or not.  the key here is notability.  Is it notable enough to have been covered by multiple third party sourceS? If yes, create an article for it.  You should use an example such as, would there be a list of every model T left in existence?  It is lists of inanimate objects.  Not a list of albu,s that have sold millions of copies. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a specific guideline which makes this distinction? --Kevin Murray 18:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The essay Listcruft explains it very well. This is not a list of stuff that would be included in an encylopedia.  An article on the airplane, yes. An list of every one left. no. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally got to what you are looking for - OK Third party list of surviving WWII aircraft:
 * Warbird Registry
 * B-29 by serial number
 * Brooklyn CUNY Aviation list
 * Warbird Worldwide magazine index (note articles on survivors)
 * Book - Warbirds Worldwide Directory of aviation survivors]
 * A link to would be great in each of those articles.  That is an amazing cite.  We do not need to copy it all over here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - As nominator. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix - per comments and draft by Piotr below. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your examples are ludicrous, condescending, and way out of context for the historical nature of these planes. This is a poorly formatted article, but the information has potential to be a rich appendix to the main article on the B-29.   In essence each is a museum.  --Kevin Murray 20:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, my examples are to show what this article opens the door for. I, as much as anybody have respect and fascination for older planes, however when it becomes a list of existing planes, that completley failes WP:NOT on many levels.  The fact is, not every surviving aircraft is notable.  There is arguments to merge this list into the main article.  Is there third party coverage of each one of these aircraft, when they are the subject of the article?  I do not believe so.  When it boils down to it, it is an indiscriminate collection of non notable existing aircraft until otherwise cited.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 11:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Chris, your example is not the best. Cessna 172 is still produced, freely available on aviation market etc. B-29 and its derivatives are not produced and are not available on aviation market - that's really big difference. There is no sense for such articles about Cessna 172 or even Tiger Moth, there is too much of these aircraft still airworthy and available but B-29 is sth very different. I agree that this article is very poorly written but it can be improved. There is only several B-29s in museums / on displays and we can list all of them in separate article without making main article more messy and heavy. Piotr Mikołajski 12:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The example was used for contrast. The question is, where is the line drawn?  At what point does an aircraft qualify to have a list of survivors here?  50 survivors, 100 survivors?  Similarly, there are probably very few notable cessna 172's that would qualify for their own list, so again where is the line drawn for notability?  Outside of the aviation aspect, would we have a list of every model T still in existance? I could have listed any of hundereds of aircraft not in production anymore.  It is my belief that sure, they are notable, notable enough for an article about the aircraft itself, not for an article about each instance of an aircraft.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple. When aircraft is not registered as currently flying (except museums and similar collections) and is not easily available on aviation market (P-51s are still available as well as Avengers, Corsairs etc.), then we can consider creating such list. Of course such lists make sense only when there is more than 2-3 aircraft left and info about survivors will make main article huge and cluttered. Piotr Mikołajski 17:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that does not sound that simple to me. How do you define each of those criteria?  This would probably be a better conversation to take up at WP:AIRCRAFT talk page.  However, I still stand by the fact that it is an indiscriminate collection of information.  Any article that requires a "how to use this page" section most definitley does not qualify as encylopedic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this particular article (as well as P-47, B-24 and CH-54 ones) is poor and have to be rewritten. Info "how to use" is senseless to me and I agree with your opinion that such articles can't be inserted into encyclopedia. But poor quality doesn't mean that such articles are senseless, IMHO it's the best way to make main articles smaller and insert more detailed info about survivors. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 17:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Was a suggestion posted on another talk page that table might be better for this type of information - found table formatting too confusing but idea was still strong so incorporated parts as a guide (this is where the how to section came from) (and guild and maps are encylopedic)Davegnz 18:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is not the formatting, the problem is the content. Convince me the information is encylopedic and not just a database dump.  The information in taht article could easily be contained within a simple relational database.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Another case, the P-51... need guidelines to tackle the 290 or 287 survivors, going to be a real challenge for someone to maintain this "notable aircraft of all times". Wiki article only lists two, and a ref to the external list.LanceBarber 15:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am ok with ref's to external lists. I think that is where it belongs.  There are databases with this kind of stuff.  Make another page, or even another wiki for it.  Just dont put it all here.  Wikipedia is not a collection of everything of all time.  It is a collection of encylopedic information, of which lists of every remianing types of an aircraft are not. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - The few survivors with documented notability should be listed, with references, on the aircraft's main article. I've also tried to get a discussion going to determine what constitutes notability at the project talk page.  AK Radecki  17:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right that this is an appropriate addition to the main article, except this information would make that article to long, which indicated the need for a separate supporting article; however, the article could be much broader based than this one. --Kevin Murray 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a big difference between a Cessna 172 and this historic aircraft. There aren't that many still in existence, and most of them are in museums, which makes them notable, IMO.  --rogerd 18:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - A 172 was used for a comparison. There are hundereds and hundereds of aircraft not as populous as the aircraft.  Does each deserve an article of a list of every existing aircraft?  It seems like a indiscriminate collection of information, hence my usage of a 172 for contrast. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nomination. - BillCJ 18:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rogerd. Edison 18:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - and add back most of the deleted "notables" with cleanup and come up with notable-guidelines for the other survivor articles under WikiProjectAircraft. The current Survivors list article can archived on a separate page under the B-29 Talk, for further research and reference. LanceBarber 19:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no encyclopedic value as is, indiscriminate. --Dhartung | Talk 19:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into an appendix for the main B-29 article. Is there a way to broaden this beyond a list and thus move additional clutter from the main article?  --Kevin Murray 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Gentleman, I don't see any reason to delete such articles. Main articles of really famous and important aircraft (B-17, B-24, B-29, Hurricane, Spitfire, Bf 109 etc.) are large and cluttered with sections and subsections. If we move details of Operators or Variants to separate articles, why we shouldn't do that for preserved historical aircraft? I agree, this one is really poorly formatted and has a lot of junk (wrecks etc.) but we can make cleanup and add some improvements. Piotr Mikołajski 07:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrecks are the flyable / display airframes of the future - there are many P-51's, P-40's B-17's, B-25 flyable today that were considered wrecks as short as 10 years ago. My criteria for being considered is relativly intact airframe (not pieces) - The CAF crashed their P-47N, its a wreck but it is store pending restoration (R). Both Canada and Britain recovered Halifax,s from under water they were considered wrecks but not on display - there are three TBD's under water they are wrecks (W) but strong possibility of being recovered restored (R) and displayed (D).Davegnz 18:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - at best summarize the information and include in the main article. Unlike for the Avro Lancaster not one of these airframes is notable of itself. As it stands the article is poorly written, badly formatted for readability, is not wikified (with museum article links where notable - eg Imperial War Museum Duxford) and not even named according to wikipedia MoS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs)
 * Only two Avro Lancasters on display have war records - however, neither Lancaster with war records did anything notable except survive the war so I guess all Lancaster survivors need to be deleated.Davegnz 18:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not one of these airframes is notable of itself - so Enola Gay and Bocks Car are not notable, Fifi is not notable, combat veterans are not notable. Yes the links are missing, but (and a big but) this is a BRAND NEW article - I do not have a computer at home and I get maybe 1-2 hours every couple of days to work on this information209.212.28.50 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not notable in this context. If it is an extremly notable one, a mention in the main article would suffice.  Every single one in existence is not notable.  What it boils down to is just a list of information, something more suited for an aviation databse, not an encylopedia.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: This information is useful to an enthusiast. Slightly Selassie 08:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - This account is a new account whose sole edits are comprised of afd's. This may be a SPA
 * Strong Keep: This information is useful to an enthusiast - while there are places you can find bits and pieces of information regarding remaining WWII veteran aircraft, no place has detailed accounts for the aviation historian. As far as detailing the remain Cessna 150's or 172 do not be silly with this comparison (maybe in 50 or 100 years but not now) - WWII aircraft are a finite quantity and Aviation historians need a reference point to keep track of these remaining aircraft209.212.28.50 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Davegnz 18:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The comparison is to pose the question. Who draws the line?  What qualifies as notable.  Should the line be drawn at 50 surviging aircraft?, 100, 150? The 172 is probably the most produced general aviation aircraft.  That makes it notable, does every 172 flown by somebody famous notable?  Should there ba list of all notable 172's?  It is just a list, there is nothing encylopedic about a list of aircraft.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But Chris, this article can be improved. It's current state is pathetic but it's not so difficult to rid info about B-50 and Tu-4, remove all wrecks etc. and write more info about survivors - with sources etc. Please look at my recent updates in List of B-29 Superfortress operators - it's quite easy to bring survivor's list to the same standard. Piotr Mikołajski 17:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Piotr, once my survivors articles are gone, how long do you thing a seperate, stand alone article on B-29 Operators etc.. is going to last - Its going to be open season on article like mine (and yours) once the door is openDavegnz 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My problem is not with the quality. My problem is with the encylopedic value of the content.  I dont care if it is dressed up nicley and easy to read, that does not make it encylopedic.  Your list in my opinion is slightly more encylopedic, the formatting has nothing to do with it.  I have no problem cleaning up articles and very regularly do, it is the content itself that is the problem. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

To everyone that has commented on condition of article - as I stated above " this is a brand new article " did a lot of work on it today, added links, added references. It's been stated need to get rid of B-50 & TU-4 survivors / actually this is the best place for all surviving B-29 variations (the B-50 was initially the B-29D) - have more links to add - need to find and add pictures (do not want to duplicate photos from related pages)Davegnz 18:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete As nom. This isn't what Wikipedia is for. Elrith 00:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Elrith you have not even published one aviation article, you do not know aviation history - so go awayDavegnz 14:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I now pose a question to Chris - right now every Star-Trek episode is currently available on Wikipedia, does Wikipedia really need to promote a subject that has untold countless web sites, webpage, blogs conventions, etc, etc... Before you complain that my article has no use in wikipedia, maybe you should be using your skills to kill off these type of Trivial article (that openly mock Wikipedia policy of not revealing plots and storylines)Davegnz 14:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, Dave, please read Content disclaimer. Wikipedia's policies ALLOW spoilers, though spoiler warnings are usually required in such cases. - BillCJ 16:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets compare apples and oranges, we all know how well that works ;). The argument that they are aleady adequatley covered by other websites is faulty logic.  If you look above, please note that is not the basis for my argument.  Could all of the information about the star trek episodes be covered in a small relational database with 5 or so fields?  ALso, your agument that there are many other sites that cover this also strenghtnes the article for star trek inclusion as each episode must be notable due to the large coverage of it.  Never the mind, it is a comparion of two unlike things.  This list is a list of existing things, list of star trek episodes are lists of highly populized television shows with mass media coverage.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not an indiscriminate list, as the nominator contends. This is a finite list of surviving examples of a vitally important and iconic aircraft.  The development of the B 29 cost more money than the development of the atomic bomb.  The hard work of genuine enthusiasts should be welcomed on Wikipedia, not spurned by those with no interest or knowledge of the topic at hand. Nick mallory 15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, i do have knwoledge of the topic at hand, and I understand what the B-29 is and its significance. That is why I am ALL for an article on the B-29.  I would love to see the article on the B-29 be promoted to FA status.  I am not trying to spurn any particular editors contributions, i am attempting to stand for what I believe is best for this project.  There are many other things in life of such significance and a list of every one left is just silly in my opinion.  I appreciate the hard work, however feel that this is just a list, not an encylopedic article.  I would love to see another webiste host this, i truly do appreciate the information but i also believe that I must uphold the highest standards for this project. In short, it has nothing to do with the accuracy or formatting of the content, it has to do with the fact that it is unencylopedic.  This is wikipedia, the encylopedia that everybody can edit, not Wikipedia the repository of every aircraft still in existence.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that the nominator is blanketing this discussion with a virtual prosecution of the topic to prove that he is right or for another agenda. He should stick to citing specific actionable guidelines rather than his personal opinion about what is unencyclopedic and what is best for the project.  Defacto, lists are properly included at WP as evidenced above; this is much ado about nothing.  Let it go and move on! --Kevin Murray 18:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - AFD's are not votes. I believe it is the nominator job to support their argument for deletion which I believe that I have done here.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Chris, I agree to an extent, but it seems that you are a bit over the top with your passion on this one. It might be time to stand back and evaluate your position considering the improvements in content and references.  I'm just not seeing any violations of either guidelines, policy, or our de facto standards regarding lists.  If you feel strongly, maybe you should rescind the nomination and post a fresh AfD since the article is so much improved.  --Kevin Murray 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, my problem is not the lack of references or formatting. Thoise can be fixed and I never nominate something based on that.  I still believe the list is unencylopedic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Chris, "I believe" is not a compelling reason for a nomination to delete. What specific guideline or policy is breached by this article?  Or are there significant precedents from prior AfD discussions that demonstrate a measurable consensus against this type of list?  Those would be compelling reasons.  --Kevin Murray 01:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand Chris' point of view, at least partially. This list is unencyclopedic because there are info about wrecks etc., not only about aircraft exhibited in museums. For me survivors are aircraft owned by museums or flyable by special teams of flights, not "aircraft-which-can-be-restored-to-display-condition-or-even-some-day-made-flyable". I can prepare I've prepared rough template of such article without "how to use" section. This can be improved, tweaked, updated with photos, wikilinked, referenced etc. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 06:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * YES! I like that. that is a good job.  I propose that a.) we rename the article to agree with the MOS on lists and then make it in the way piotr has requested.  That looks great and contains encylopedic content.  Good job! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Great job, Piotr, I heartily support this approach to the problem.  AK Radecki  14:11, 24 May 2007 (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.