Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airliners by maximum takeoff weight


 * 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. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

List of airliners by maximum takeoff weight

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD removed by IP on WP:ITSUSEFUL grounds. PROD rationaile, still relevant, is that this is a incomplete, mostly unreferenced, and rather WP:SYNTH-ish list that is a "comparison list" compared by a criterion that isn't broadly used in the real world. The usual comparison for airliners is number of seats, and below that, range; MTOW isn't something often, if ever, used as a benchmark, and when it is it's in pounds, not metric tons, and as a comparison list of airliners it makes some truly ridiculous "comparisons" (Boeing 747-400 vs Saab 2000 for instance). And changing the scope of the list from "airliners" to "aircraft", as was done as part of the deprodding makes its scope impossibly broad. The Bushranger One ping only 22:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This seems to be WP:IDL and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP applies. Imperial vs. Metric, two articles AN-225 and A380-800 both use metric (and bracketed imperial) in their articles, so claiming the wrong units is pointless, and usage probably depends upon where you live. Airliners to Aircraft is probably a good idea to include the AN-225. The heaviest/biggest is something used in the real world, especially by the popular press, and programs like Big, Bigger, Biggest. Suggest rename to something like List heaviest aircraft by maximum takeoff weight.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, what? In aviation, metric tons are never used. Pounds almost always, sometimes kilograms, worldwide. A List of heaviest aircraft might well be valid, but this is not it. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom way to not useful, and way too wide a net cast. Also if you where in Aviation you'd realize that Aviation is always done in Imperial measurements.  It's an international standard so that pilots don't get confused going from one area to another. Caffeyw (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be wise to tell the UK Civil Aviation Authority who worryingly think MTOW is in kilograms. Thincat (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ICAO standards are for weights/heights to be Imperial. Just because a CAA decides to publish a publication locally doesn't absolve them of the need to publish information in standard format.  Look at METARs, TAFs, Sectional Charts, etc they always use the same measurements.  Canada a few years ago had nearly a very bad crash because of the fact they tried to locally use metric measurements.  It caused a plane to not have enough fuel loaded.  While they can certainly publish in metric, by international agreement they must always provide data in Imperial measurements for standard publications.  It traces back to when Imperial was the world wide standard.  I'd much prefer metric, but it's just not a priority for change, and with the US still using it I doubt it will change soon.  Caffeyw (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Airports in Europe or Africa tend to charge fees based on MTOW in metric tons, e.g. Frankfurt and Cairo... JochenvW (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. We have the template to convert between metric and imperial units (and for a general encyclopaedia I'd say that both should be displayed) so that is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted. I'm not knowledgeable in the subject area but as a lay person, comparing aircraft by the maximum takeoff weights and the other parameters listed here is both useful and interesting. A quick google seems to show that lists such as these are used in airport planning, so it's not an irrelevance (but as already noted it is relevant to popular culture too which is just as valid). Finally, it is not WP:SYNTH as it does not combine two or more sources in such a way as to say anything that is not already in a reliable source. We are simply tabulating independently verifiable facts from multiple sources. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of the units comment is not that they are imperial or metric. It's that they're in a unit that is never used, regardless of system. And how would we deal with the list being WP:INDISCRIMINATE? - The Bushranger One ping only 17:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The unit or units being wrong is something that can very easily be fixed and is not a reason why this should be deleted. A list is indiscriminate only if it cannot have a defined criteria for inclusion and still be encyclopaedic. The inclusion criteria for this list just needs clarifying and applying - i.e. it needs cleanup not deletion. It also needs a better title, but that too is not a reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Indiscriminate" can also mean that the defined criteria are impossibly large. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete an indiscrimanate list if it was to include every airliner it is short by a few hundred entries, and despite the lack of many entries it includes aircraft that are not airliners but large transport aircraft that said what remains has no encyclopedic value. MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A list being incomplete is not a reason to delete the list, but to complete it. Every airliner would not be indiscriminate if "airliner" can be defined for the purposes of the list, and we have no trouble defining it elsewhere on Wikipedia (e.g. Airliner and Category:Airliners). If there are entries in the list that do not meet the inclusion criteria then they can easily be removed without necessitating the deletion of the list. As I noted above this needs cleanup not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Airliner" is easily defined. And that definition makes the scope of the list impossibly - one might even say, indiscriminatly - large. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve IMO, this article should completely revamped to only include airliners in production. Also, the heaviest type of each aircraft model, rather than including each individual type, should be listed. In addition, ONLY those aircraft made to become airliners should be included; List of large aircraft is for the AN-225 and other cargo/military aircraft. Hjay50 (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If kept, "Airliners since 1980" or something might be better, as "in production" is the "current/modern" sort of thing that is generally discouraged. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up - Change to standard units, decide which aircraft should be included (please note that trying to include all aircraft in wikipedia itself is not considered "impossible" nor overly large, AND that all aircraft in the list already have an article, and thus references.) MTOW seems to be a widely used measurement in aviation, and so this is a perfectly valid list. Hardly "indiscriminate".   Th e S te ve   10:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Including all aircraft in Wikipedia itself =/= including all aircraft in a single list, which would be in the megabytes in size if done. Now, as I've said before, if a tight rescoping can be arranged, this might well be valid - but can we perhaps suggest/come up with what that scope should be? - The Bushranger One ping only 10:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up good overview for quick checks. JochenvW (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL - The Bushranger One ping only 10:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete; unmaintained and unmaintainable list. We have more complete & more accurate coverage in other articles. bobrayner (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LISTN. I'm unfamiliar with the subject area, but a search of the 'net doesn't indicate this to be a generally recognised criterion for comparing aircraft. If deleted, I'd support undeletion/userfication if reworked (and subsequently moved) to form the basis of list of heaviest aircraft or similar. In this case, historical encyclopedic content should be retained for reference, rather than only including airliners in production as suggested above. -- Trevj (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2013 (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.