Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most successful aircraft


 * 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dark Light Project

 * 1) delete Dark Ermac 13:27, 19 March 2007 (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.


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 08:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

List of most successful aircraft

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A vague list with no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. There is no definition of success and the article seems to have an English speaking county / US bias. It's basically uncited and probably unverifiable for the aircraft listed. As a side note, it was prod'd but de-prod'd by an anon user and the initial contributor of the article is now indef blocked. Dual Freq 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think that this is the beginning of a good encyclopedia article, but I think it needs to be expanded beyond a list and moved to title such as Historically successful aircraft. - Richard Cavell 03:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It could be improved Crested Penguin 03:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I neglected to mention that the list is very subjective. For example, the Harrier jump jet is listed as successful while the History Channel also includes it in its Modern Marvels: Engineering Disasters 6 episode decrying its design flaws. A user on the talk page also questions inclusion of the C-130 based on its accident history. Additionally, due to the lack of a definable, concrete definition of successful, almost every aircraft could probably be considered successful in one respect or another or the aircraft would not have reached production. --Dual Freq 03:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Inherently subjective list. Pjbflynn 03:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. COMPLETELY subjective list. --Calton | Talk 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsalvageably subjective. --RaiderAspect 06:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No salvation, inherently POV. /Blaxthos 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Mind-bogglingly subjective.  Also, if this list is the MOST successful aircraft rather than just VERY successful aircraft, shouldn't it only have one entry? ;) FiggyBee 08:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subjective; no attribution for definition of "successful" (do they mean most popular? Safest? Easiest to fly? Cheapest to run? What?) or for inclusion of aircraft. Also extremely biased towards American aircraft. -- Charlene 09:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - incredibly subjective and POV. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  09:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsalvageably POV. --Mmx1 11:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is inherently subjective and not NPOV. -- Kyok o  13:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe a major problem with the current article is that instead of using a single measure of "success" and clearly defining it, it uses varying criteria that seem to have been arbitrarily chosen. The list would be better if it used a single criterion, such as "List of aircraft with the longest production runs" or something like that. Of course, lists like that run the risk of going against the idea that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but that's for another time. -- Kyok o  13:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, although weakly. Yes, there is a problem with the criteria for "success"; AFAIAC any aircraft that flies is "successful", since man will never fly.  Were it moved to a list of aircraft produced in largest numbers I'd be inclined to keep it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That list already exists, and I don't think anyone has any problems with it. FiggyBee 16:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. How is this "mind-bogglingly subjective"?  There are perfectly good criteria for "success" (albeit several different ones), and some are used here: most ordered and produced commercial airliner sounds successful to me.  Clearly in need of cleanup, but a reasonable list.  I see no problem at all with having several different criteria used; for example, "most manufactured", "longest in use", and "most profit" could all reasonably be thought of as criteria for success.  bikeable (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for insurmountable NPOV and OR issues. No objective definition of "successful" is possible. Otto4711 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * rename because of the above comment suggest that a type of POV may be perceived in the term "most successfull". I suggest the new list be called: "List of sucessfull and poppular aircrafts". Also, remove any information which is not properly sourced. ie.: If "airplane A is very successful/popular" (which means it is in the list) then there should be a quote/reference to who said so. This avoids a violation of WP:A. If we say, according to, a survey from ABC inc., Airplane A is very popular, then Keep that information. Prior to any deletion the relevant sourced information should be verified and transfered to the new list. Finally, even though popularity is subjective it is less a contreversial theme than successfullness. Nevertheless, popularity is sometimes harder to evaluate and is subjective. Ironically many wikipedians believe popularity is a reason for inclussion or exclussion. Water fuel cell is not that popular but it is an article. Also, sucessfullness and popularity can both be measured and hence are empirical. Empirical data is not subjective. It can be measured by a specific amount and devided by a common denominator to give specific stats. These stats should be utilised if possible in this list. I may be correct to assume that those who vote because they believe the issue is subjectivity that perhaps it was your way of saying "that there is a lack of emperical data or referencing?". --FR Soliloquy 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * comment:Objective criteria for inclusion is cited at wikipedia's rules here at WP:A. Properly sourced information should be suficient enough for inclusion. If Howard Stern says "I cut my pubes last night. My hairs were getting longer than my penis." Or the fact that "The world scares me." said Howard. Then I think, considering the good source I provided, it should be included in the appropriate article. Similarly, if the information is well sourced... ie.: Toy's R Us offers or did offer a helicopter and it is documented (note: this link is not a UH-61 helicopter) then it should be included. --CyclePat 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The list doesn't need to be all-inclusive to be valid. Claiming it was all-inclusive would be a POV issue, but simply listing proably successful aircraft against various measures seems quite valid. Providing proper references to substantiate claims would make it acceptable. I do agree the title reads as horribly objective, but the claims made can be substantiated. (please note that this comment was unsigned the user who performed the edit can be found by clicking here)
 * Delete Definition of "successful" seems subjective; numbers built? Best airmiles to accident ratio? Exceeded expectations? I really can't figure out a way to rehabilitate this even by renaming.  Pig mandialogue 19:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it seems that the aircraft in this list are either: In service for many years, or produced in great numbers, or both.  Perhaps this could be made into List of aircraft in service for 30 years or more and/or List of aircraft produced in largest numbers --rogerd 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete but I have no problem with 10 different lists of the form List of most produced aircraft which would focus on other measures of "success". Pascal.Tesson 20:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - too subjective. Metamagician3000 09:35, 23 March 2007 (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.