Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-BVTF

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:56, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

G-BVTF
This is an article about a registration mark used on one not-particularly-notable aircraft. Please tell me we don't want to set the precendent of including articles like this. DJ Clayworth 14:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also many dozens of similar articles by the same author.


 * Comment: I've added VfD notices to all of them and directed the discussion and voting here. --Xcali 22:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Entire list
 * 1) D-ANFH
 * 2) EI-CDH
 * 3) G-BLDE
 * 4) PK-RII
 * 5) 4X-BAC
 * 6) G-BGDC
 * 7) CC-CHR
 * 8) ZS-SIO
 * 9) G-BGDF
 * 10) N902PG
 * 11) N954PG
 * 12) LV-ZYG
 * 13) G-BGYL
 * 14) PH-MCV
 * 15) 5Y-QQQ
 * 16) TC-OAK
 * 17) D-ALAI
 * 18) PH-KZP
 * 19) G-BVTF
 * 20) PH-BDN


 * Delete all of them. --Xcali 15:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that individual articles for individual aircraft are a bad idea although I wouldn't rule them out as a class - G-MEAN, the Interceptor's helicopter is potentially deserving of an article, for instance. David | Talk 15:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * My god, there's an article on Interceptor? I remember that. I disagree with the phrase "It was received well critically and by viewers", which seems very much unlike my own recollection; it was awful, everybody hated it, it was a joke, it flopped terribly. Er, whilst I'm at it, delete G-BVTF. Make it go, make it go away.-Ashley Pomeroy
 * I liked it. Yes, Annabel Croft was rubbish but Sean O'Kane was good, and the series didn't flop: it got reasonable ratings but became a casualty of internal ITV politics. There was quite a fuss in March 1990 when its cancellation was announced. David | Talk 21:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, however, I would like to see an article on G-BOAC. Bollar 15:35, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've got to disagree with you on that. Why is G-BOAC any more significant than other aircraft of its class?  It might deserve a mention under Concorde.  --Xcali 15:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can think of a couple of reasons -- First off, as the second Concorde built and one of the test aircraft, holding several records, it is more notable than the remaining fleet. Wikipedia has entries on other notable aircraft of a series, such as China Clipper.  If BOAC had been prescient enough to name their fleet, we'd probably make an entry here using the aircraft's name instead of registration and I doubt the entry would be questioned.  Second, BOAC has nmemonic value, and it's one of the few registration numbers I can associate with a notable plane. Bollar 16:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete all of them. Obsessive detail. He should create his own website. --Red King 16:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. We have quite a few articles on individual noteworthy aircraft, but none of these can be described that way... --Rlandmann 01:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. I have to agree, the individual generic 737-200s and 737-300s are all so identical to each other that it is meaningless to make separate articles on each indivisual airplane. This is in contrast to cruise ships which are usually built individually (or in small series, and not by the hundred). I suggest that if an airlines fleetlist can be found, that an external link to it be placed on each airliners article, in that way readers can easily access information  about individual planes if that's what they want. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  07:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * D-LEET. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:08, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .