Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas DC-7B N836D


 * 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 --Mike Cline (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Douglas DC-7B N836D

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The claim to notability appears to rest on the aircraft being the only flying example of the type. However there are and have been many "only flying example of the type" aircraft, and IMO the fact that this particular aircraft - which has been involved in nothing out of the ordinary during its life - is the only flying Douglas DC-7 at the moment and has been written about in an enthusiast magazine devoted to airliner aircraft, does not meet WP:GNG. YSSYguy (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete article - I'm sure it warrants a (brief) mention in the parent Douglas DC-7 article but not its own one.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails to meet the standard for articles on individual aircraft and, because this aircraft will be used for paying passengers seems just a bit too much like spam to me. I agree that a brief mention in the "survivors" section of the aircraft type article would be the best place for this. - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I understand the points and concerns. I believed when I wrote, and still do, that it is a notable aircraft, a unique example of a restored passenger-flying aircraft and this uniqueness, being mentioned in the news, and flown with passengers to different locations make it notable enough for its own article and not a side show off the main DC-7 article. -- Alexf(talk) 14:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not "a unique example of a restored passenger-flying aircraft", unless you mean it's the only passenger-carrying DC-7. There are and have been several Lockheed Super Constellations restored to fly - one which I am involved with happens to be the only one flying at the moment; I am also involved in the ongoing restoration of a Convair 340. There are and have been several Douglas DC-6s restored to fly. There are/have been at least two Martin 4-0-4s restored to fly. A Lisunov Li-2 has been restored to fly. There are and have been several Scottish Aviation Twin Pioneers restored to fly. I could go on... YSSYguy (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant the only passenger-carrying DC-7. -- Alexf(talk) 00:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The two sources are very in-depth and demonstrate passing WP:GNG. Contrary to the nom's statement, an "enthusiast magazine devoted to airliner aircraft" is in fact a reliable source  per WP:RS and WP:GNG as it's independent of the topic and has editorial oversight of its content. There's too much sourceable content to be used in the Douglas DC-7 article.  --Oakshade (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Too much sourceable content" - while sourced, I don't see a lot of useful content eg the used aircraft dealer or its time spent on an airfield doing nothing although possibly of interest to the enthusiast seems like (unencylopaedic) padding. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, just because refs can be found doesn't make it notable enough for a stand-alone article. The article has been padded out with two paras of deletable info, leaving only two paras to merge and they could easily be cut down into one para. It should have a brief mention in Douglas DC-7 and cite those refs. - 16:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's relevant content to the subject, there's nothing barring inclusion. Certain editors don't see the content useful is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  If secondary sources have written the content about the topic, then it can be included.--Oakshade (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - a significant survivor as it's the only airworthy example. Every bit as notable as Avro Vulcan XH558 and Sally B. Why should the warbirds get all the glamour? Mjroots (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was incorrect when I stated it is the "only flying example of the type", as there are 70 still registered in the United States. While I doubt very much that all 70 aircraft are still flying, there is no notability inherent in it being one of a number still earning their keep, regardless of what it is carrying. YSSYguy (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's where we disagree. Being the only one in the world with an FAA license to carry passengers is unique and notable. -- Alexf(talk) 10:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is not the only flyer, then Merge into the DC-7 article. Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment the aircraft notability guideline says "major subject of reliable book or monograph" or "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the aircraft's builder, manufacturer, owner, or operator, with at least some of these works serving a general audience" I don't whether authors of the guideline wouldl count a magazine article as a monograph, but coverage in some other publications wouldn't hurt. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete although it is the last of the type flying passengers that in itself is not a notable feature, many aircraft are in the position of being last of the type but are not deemed notable. Also note that operators like Air Atlantique Classic Flight have a number of types that are nearly if not last of the type flying passengers which makes the organisation notable rather than the aircraft. Perhaps an article on the Historical Flight Foundation may make more sense which could feature N836D, although as they only have one aircraft that might be an idea for the future. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep We can by consensus deem a topic "worthy of notice", but the notability in this case seems to be by normal WP:GNG.  Seems like a plane with a unique story, one that Wikipedia should be pleased to have.  It is possible that the encyclopedic value will change with time, but that it true of all encyclopedia articles.  It might be reasonable to add a paragraph about HFF to this article, but it makes little sense to me to move this material to Douglas DC-7, as this is an event as well as an airplane.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The guideline on aircraft uses quite strong language, which I'm quite surprised at, even going beyond the general notability guideline in that it states "...at least some of these works serving a general audience." So this article clearly does not do that.  However an argument could, I believe, be made that despite this the general guideline should be applied, and I'm not a fan of the "local" guidelines, so I'd make it.  But the sources presented have to meet the "reliable sources" thresholds regardless:
 * "Rescuing one large piece of history" does not meet the "independent" standard, in that it's an advertisement: "...N836D, the gleaming example on display here at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh, its historic Eastern Airlines livery graphic testament to a time long past."
 * "A Promise Kept: The Eastern DC-7B Story" is in depth, the (original) source appears to be independant, despite the "book tickets" banner across the top of the page where it's hosted.
 * "Historical Flight Foundation" doesn't qualify as a "significant" piece, regardless of the reliability of the source, as it is a simple list entry.
 * We can't have articles with only one source. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you indicating keep or delete? - Ahunt (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote. My opinion of the status of the article (at the time that I wrote it) was fairly transparent, I'd have thought. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aware that it isn't a vote, but it wasn't clear to me from what you wrote whether you were in favour of keeping the article or not. - Ahunt (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I entirely agree with Aaron Brenneman's comments above about the three sources used in the article at present. But GNews searches bring up this large piece in the Miami Herald and this Spanish-language story in Primera Hora, which if my very basic Spanish is correct is entirely about the plane (unless anyone reading this knows better). There are a few more behind paywalls (partially viewable here). Combined with what's already there, we have more than enough to meet WP:GNG, and since some of these are general newspapers, the stricter essay at Notability (aircraft) is also met. Amazing what you can find with the right search string! Alzarian16 (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Links added to the article. The Primera Hora (Puerto Rico) article (in Spanish) is indeed about this aircraft and talks about the visit paid to PR. -- Alexf(talk) 15:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate to see that the sources are only at the bottom. Following the links guideline most of them could/would/should be removed.  They should be go into the text where they fit, and that's easiest to do by the person who's found the sources.  Immediacy, familiarity with the material, etc.
 * That being said, those sources appear to me to meet or exceed the minimum standard for "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
 * Rock on, Alzarian16, that's the stuff what makes the baby deletionist in me cry big shiny tears. Rock on.
 * Aaron Brenneman (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the sources that he found, at the bottom, as I felt there were enough in-line citations and these would not add new material, just more reliable sourcing. As per the other links to photograph sites, I have to make a disclaimer. I did not (as the creator of the article) add any of them as I felt that many photo sites were not viable under WP:ELNO and in one case, some other editor (definitely not me) added a link to my photography gallery (you can guess which one by the name). I definitely did not, and do not have any relation with the owners, just happen to live in the same town and visit the same airport on occasion. No conflict there and would not feel hurt if another editor thought to remove it. -- Alexf(talk) 17:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A frequent tactic it to have an "incubating ground" on the talk page where those sources can be kept until they get integrated. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I shifted the various photogalleries to External links, I didn't feel they made the grade as reference sources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Douglas DC-7 Content must rest on sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the sources linked to above? Mainstream news sources and industry magazines cover this in detail by itself, and there's no lack of verifiability. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2011 (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.