Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of aircraft by date and usage category


 * 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 no consensus, default to keep. There is a clear split of opinion. Editors arguing for delete have criticised that this list is indiscriminate, is arranged in an unhelpful arbitrary manner, and duplicates information already on other lists. In contrast, editors arguing for keep have vouched for the usefulness of this list on top of other lists of aircrafts and that the solution to the list's incompleteness is by rework (expansion, reorganisation and pruning with well-defined criteria; fork into list of lists etc) not deletion. So I'm closing this as no consensus, default to keep with a recommendation to rework the contents of this list. Editors who participated in this AfD are encouraged to improve this list; and if the scope of this list doesn't change substantially in a year, renomination at AfD should be permitted. Deryck C. 16:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

List of aircraft by date and usage category

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Indiscriminate list with no defined inclusion criteria and no clear definition even of what the article title means. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a hopelessly indiscriminate list which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would contain every aircraft ever built, sorted into arbitrary categories delineated by arbitrary time periods. There are no defined criteria; for example the arbitrary category "Research, prototypes and specials" contains air racers, piston-engine fighters, airliners, jet fighters, flying boats, aircraft that entered production, bombers, the Wright Flyer, the Space Shuttle (those two are very similar) and helicopters among others. That category alone could justifiably include several thousand one-off aircraft, some of which could be added to other categories as well as they fit multiple categories, for example the Spruce Goose could be included in four or five different categories. The de Havilland Mosquito was used as a bomber, a fighter, a military transport aircraft, a civilian transport aircraft, a military air support aircraft and a reconnaissance aircraft, and was also used postwar in civil general aviation roles. Many aircraft currently in the lists are arguably in the wrong category. As there is room for such arguments, the essential arbitrariness will probably generate never-ending discussion for no useful result. Many of the links are to manufacturers and not aircraft; this issue at least can be fixed, the rest cannot. YSSYguy (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is this never-ending discussion? The list has existed since 2003, it's read by thousands of people every month but the talk page seems reasonably quiet.  If this list is not perfect, then where should I go instead to browse such information? Andrew D. (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you care to browse Category:Lists of aircraft you will find many such lists. Many are sortable, or at least inherently so, which makes them far more useful than this one can ever be. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge There are lots of lists of aircraft as the general idea obviously passes WP:LISTN.  Most of them seem to be quite silly like List of aircraft (0-A) which doesn't contain any aircraft at all.  This list has a fairly obvious and sensible structure, organising the major aircraft types by period and function – airliners, bombers, fighters &c.  As such, it's much more useful for browsing than than the absurd alphabetic tree which assumes that you already know what you're looking for and so seems quite pointless.  The list has existed since 2003 and doesn't seem at all controversial – notice that this is the first AFD in all that time.  If there's a better way of organising this then per WP:PRESERVE we should keep this for cross-checking or as a summary.  Deletion would be disruptive per WP:ATD. Andrew D. (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On a point of fact, there are lots of types listed at List of aircraft (0-A). &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The existence of this article since 2003 is hardly a reason to keep it, the first time I saw it was a few days ago after it was WLed as a see also at Rank of Commercial-Business Passenger airplanes manufacturer Companies By Production Approx Passenger Capacity Range and I immediately PROded it, which you removed; and then someone else started the AfD process. If I had known about it seven years ago, there would have been a deletion discussion seven years ago. YSSYguy (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and redevelop -- I agree with the nominator's assessment of "hopelessly indiscriminate", but I think the solution is not deletion, but to implement some defined criteria for inclusion. Without those criteria, this should be a list with many tens of thousands of entries before it could be considered complete. Off the top of my head, criteria for inclusion might be a number manufactured (say, at least 100 examples) for a mass-produced aircraft or citation in Reliable Sources that say that this is a particularly noteworthy aircraft type for prototypes or experimental aircraft or even aircraft like Concorde. I'd love to hear Andrew D's ideas for the criteria we could use to improve this article. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment so your proposed solution to the indiscriminate nature of this, is to impose some artificial and arbitrary exclusion criteria. What then is the pupose of the article, is it to group some aircraft by arbitrarily-selected eras and arbitrarily-selected categories, and ignore the fact that other aircraft exist? I would also welcome an explanation as to why it is important to categorise the XB-70 Valkyrie, the Avro Ashton, the Turbay T-3 and the Hiller ROE Rotorcycle together, or to exclude one or more of those four from a list that all can validly be a member of (research, protoypes and specials 1946-1969). YSSYguy (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. As rlandmamm points out, this is potentially a list of all aircraft types, with many represented multiple times by different variants/roles/production eras, and each class needs its own list article. But many such lists have long existed and they are being expanded all the time and most of them are sortable on things like date which makes them more useful; what we have here is such an an embryonic beginning compared to the vast number in the lists to be found by browsing Category:Lists of aircraft and its sub-categories, that filtering for the odd entry that can be moved is just not worth doing. IMHO, if this article has really existed since 2003 then this AfD is more than overdue. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep – Looks like a well thought-out comprehensive overview of aircraft; it's not even too long to load or painful to read, which is quite a usability achievement given its broad scope. Probably not very useful for aviation buffs, but definitely worth an article for casual readers, as a starting point to learn more about the subject. Finally, it does no harm and gets plenty of views. Let it live on, for the sake of our audience. WP:Readers first! Arguments to delete sound like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, to which I would answer WP:SOFIXIT. — JFG talk 09:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that the section "Research, prototypes and specials" is kind of an unwieldy catch-all; I would recommend forking it out to a separate article, with perhaps some meaningful categorization of prototypes. — JFG talk 09:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The only reason that it is manageable is that it is woefully incomplete - even ten times as big would not catch them all. Nor is it a selection of the most notable types, it's just a rag-bag miscellany. There is no point in achieving usability if the information is not worth using. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The list contains about 3000 entries and that's about the same as a respectable and substantial work such as The Encyclopedia of Aircraft. This indicates that this is about the right number for a general survey or summary.  Obscure types can be covered in more specialised lists which this one can link to.  Andrew D. (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is growing fast. It is not as manageable as it was last time I blinked. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3,000 aircraft means it is less than 10% complete. It is either going to be manageable and woefully incomplete or unmanageable and complete. Doesn't work either way. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 13:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - if it were complete it would contain more than 35,000 aircraft. It is of no value to any reader and cannot be fixed in any useful way. We already have List of aircraft, which duplicates most of this and in a more useful manner. - Ahunt (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - far to rambling and indiscriminate list that has about tens of thousands of aircraft missing much better dealt with by list of aircraft and the categorisation system (which uses decade and usage). MilborneOne (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and split as this is a useful list for readers and satisfies WP:LISTN. This article should be kept as a list of lists, with its current content split into articles like List of civil air transport aircraft by date, List of general aviation aircraft by date, List of military transport aircraft by date, List of civil helicopters by date, etc. which should solve length concerns raised by delete voters above. SST  flyer  02:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In what way is this a useful list? Nobody has actually explained how they propose to successfully fix it, or why it is important to lump disparate types together in blocks of 15 years or more. Many aircraft fit more than one category, so this could easily have more than 50,000 entries. Take one that I reckon almost nobody outside Australia has heard of, the GAF Nomad; it would validly fit six of the current categories in the article - used as an airliner, used in general aviation, used by several navies, used by the Australian army as a military transport, used as a military reconnaissance aircraft, fitted with miniguns and used by the Thai military as a counter-insurgency air support aircraft. The Beechcraft Super King Air fits five categories. The Beechcraft King Air fits five categories. The category "general aviation" covers any aviation activity at all that is not military or scheduled airline. The balloon on which you went on an airborne safari in Africa? That's general aviation. Take a plane-load of enthusiasts to an airshow in an old Douglas DC-6 or a Fokker F27 Friendship? General aviation. Firefighting with an Ilyushin Il-76 or a Martin Mars or a Fairchild C-82? General aviation. Fly from the USA to Australia in a McDonnell Douglas MD-80, as Bill Clinton did for a speaking tour? General aviation. Operate Boeing B-17s for aerial surveying, as the Institut géographique national did? General aviation. Fly a hang glider off a hill; spray Canadian pine forests for budworms with a Lockheed Super Constellation; spread fertilizer with a Douglas DC-3; film Saving Private Ryan or The Tuskegee Airmen and use P-51 Mustangs, or use a Supermarine Spitfire during shooting of Foyle's War; operate a Fairchild Dornier 328JET or a British Aerospace Jetstream or a GAF Nomad as an air ambulance; skydive out of a CASA C-212 or a Short Skyvan or a Boeing 727 or a Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner; fly company executives around the country in a Douglas B-23 Dragon or a Lockheed L-188 Electra or a Saab 340 or a de Havilland Dove or a Boeing 767.... Of course we could impose exclusion or inclusion criteria, but if you restrict the scope, what is the article for? YSSYguy (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * YSSYguy (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since for example the List of fighter aircraft is sortable by date, such date-bound lists are mere dysfunctional duplication. Despite vague claims to the contrary, as YSSYguy observes they serve no useful function. A "list of lists" by aircraft role is useful, but a templated navbox to go in each such list article would be far more sensible than a dedicated article. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, random and indiscriminate, duplicates other lists.  Sandstein   15:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - not completely indiscriminate, but I'd like a more convincing argument than "I like it" or "people clicked on this list x times last year." Bearian (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not indiscriminate list and the inclusion criteria is well defined. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  07:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Arun Kumar Singh, what are the inclusion criteria? YSSYguy (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * YSSYguy, did you read the AfD nomination? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  12:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:AKS.9955, indeed I did, it says there are no criteria; you say there are criteria and they are well defined, I would really like to know what they are. So, what are the inclusion criteria? YSSYguy (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete not really an encyclopedic subject and the random inclusion does not make it any use to the reader, that is if they get pass the "what the chuff is this all about" when they first look at it. MilborneOne (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - unmaintainable listcruft. The "usage" categorization is quite arbitrary since (as mentioned by YSSYguy) a single aircraft can easily be used for multiple purposes. If we remove that categorization, we are left with List of aircraft by date which I hope everyone sees as the unmaintainable mess it would be.
 * Of course, "list of fighters", "list of commercial passenger aircraft" etc. sortable by date are all valid topics (or at least could plausibly be) and if someone is ready to sort out all of this let them have their WP:REFUND, but the list right now is little more than a heap of links.
 * Saying WP:PRESERVE requires to keep a list of links that could be useful if categorized correctly but are thrown around randomly is in my view incorrect. None would say WP:PRESERVE requires us to keep any articles containing valid English words because they can be rearranged in completely different sentences. Similarly, the value of a list is in the organization it provides more than the entries themselves. Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. One may add that the List of fighter aircraft and many others like it already exist. Most are sortable not only on date but on various other criteria too - far more useful. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, a "list of lists" type of article could be useful for aircraft (as the main list has 0 information about each article and no links to the sublists) but this isn't it. ansh 666 19:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 08:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. More suited to categories. The entire list, being sourced solely by other articles, reeks of WP:NOTIINFO and WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * IAR Keep. To be honest, I've never really understood lists.  And, for the most part, I usually feel the same way   does; that a category can do anything a list can.  But, in this case, I like how the list organizes the entries by two dimensions; type of aircraft crossed with year.  So, maybe I'm just saying WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL, both of which I know are poor arguments, but WP:IAR lets me do that.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was only sorting the debate into the transport category.... Class455 (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge - per . --Class455 (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.