Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of aircraft captured by Vichy France authorities


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 00:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

List of aircraft captured by Vichy France authorities
It's difficult to see how the list could be verified (no citations are given), nor what the point of it is. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is hard to see how the blanket assertion about verification justifies deletion. The editor is a known quantity here, and undoubtedly works from reference material. You could try asking first. Charles Matthews 22:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit puzzled &mdash; first, because the original writer isn't known to me, at any rate (and seems only to have been around for a couple of weeks or so), and secondly, because you've ignored half of my reason (i.e., what on Earth is the point of it?). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See User:Charles Matthews/Imperial Japan for the full Monty on this. As for WWII buffs and their interests - the case doesn't really have to be made since we have huge amounts of reference material on weaponry. More than most people want to know about the Estonian Air Force (two homemade planes, same author). But within the 'verifiability' criteria, there is no real basis for criticism (trainspotting no sin here). Charles Matthews


 * Keep per Charles Matthews and cleanup. --Terence Ong 14:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable listcruft, i.e. a list apparently created solely for the purpose of having a list, which is of no or little interest to any person without a major interest in the subject. Stifle 16:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I had no interest in this until I saw the list. Now I hope it is expanded until completion. However, the list needs to be immediately reworked because it makes no sense since the copyedit -- JJay 15:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced. Not enough of common knowledge to keep such article valid and verified. Pavel Vozenilek 23:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Incognito 00:58, 19 January 2006 (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.