Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N221SG


 * 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. Cbrown1023 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

N221SG

 * — (View AfD)

non-notable aircraft, non-verfied, article self-acknowledges that it is only a rumor, no verifiable references to allegations provided. Akradecki 18:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, if it's non-descript and rumoured to be used to transfer prisoners, it's can't be verified. Budgiekiller 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The topic of CIA prison aircraft has been active in public debate for the past few years so it is a notable topic. The article includes two independent references from major media outlets (i.e. not fringe media prone to hyperbole) to a CIA aircraft with this tail number and the articles allege use as a CIA prison aircraft.  Perhaps the term "rumored" should be changed to "alleged" to provide a more professional tone. Epolk 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, yes it's definitely a notable topic, but will this article ever be verifiable? Budgiekiller 19:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'll agree that the general topic of prison aircraft is notable, but I contest that an article about this aircraft and with the name of just the aircraft's registration, is notable. Akradecki 20:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom, but registrations can change. If it is kept, it should be renamed. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep provided suitible references and citations can be added to validate the claims the article makes, then keep. Also, please bear in mind that article quality is not a suitible reason for deletion. If no sources apear, re-nominate here. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart  -  Receive My EviLove  22:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The "mystery" aircrafts of CIA flying around have been in media attention, also in the international press. For example the Norwegian NRK had an article mentioning this here. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename Isn't there a learjet article, or is there one on older models, or do older models have their own pages? The information, when attached to a source should go on a page titled something like Learjet 35.  This can be a redirect page.  KP Botany 15:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not clutter the aircraft's article with subject matter related to the operation of a single aircraft. If we are to retain this article (which I still oppose), perhaps a name such as "CIA rendition scandal" or what ever would be better. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Response If it is about that aircraft, that's where it belongs. This is not clutter.  That's like saying, "Don't include anything but acting/technical information in an article about Angelina Jolie, make it all its own article."  If it's about the aircraft, it should be mentioned in the article, if it's mentioned at all.  KP Botany 00:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Uhh, why? Shouldn't the focus be less about the model of the aircraft and more about the subject of contention, which in this case is the alleged act of transporting prisoners? Why should your average reader care about the type or registration of the aircraft involved? They're more interested in what is occurring and why. Let's put it this way. If it were a Boeing 737-700, an extremely common aircraft, do you think this content would then belong in the article for that type? It would quickly get booted out for distracting from the core subject. Why should a small article about the Learjet 35 be any different? The answer to a weak article is not to lump it into another only passingly-related article. I suggest this article be given a proper name related to the act of rendition, and beefed up with proper sources. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 00:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Response But that appears to be what the article is about the rumor of the type of airplane. If it's a rumor about Angelina Jolie, does it get its own article?  No, it's in her article, although if it is a big rumor or hoax that gains serious notoriety it may get its own article in addition to being mentioned in hers.  This is what the rumor is about, the type of aircraft.  It may not be as common as a 737, but Learjet 35s are rather common aircraft.  KP Botany 01:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Response I think you misunderstand...the rumor isn't about the type of aircraft, it's about one specific aircraft, one of hundreds of Lear 35s. There are not hundreds of Angelinas, just one. And, most importantly, rumor goes against the verifiability that's the core of Wikipedia. That having been said, some aircraft model articles have a "trivia" section, and maybe a one or two sentence summary of this article in the Lear 35 article (or instead of "trivia", maybe under the heading of "specific aircraft of note"?), with this article then becoming a redirect is a compromise that can be lived with. Thoughts Joseph? Akradecki 02:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Yes, it is certainly trivial, and I do understand, or had thought that it was about one particular plane that happens to be a Learjet 35. The rumor is tied directly to Angelina, one single actress, which is why I switched from battleships as analogies, because I couldn't remember the correct title for a particular one, and this rumor is tied directly to a Learjet 35.  Yes, a trivia section or specific aircraft or note or some such is appropriate with a redirect--but, in this case, if and only if it is correctly sourced.  Without sources, delete.  Rumors do get articles on Wikipedia, if they are of note, just like nonexistent animals (Cryptozoology) and scientific hoaxes (Piltdown man). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KP Botany (talk • contribs) 02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Delete - Per nom. This article has been around for 14 months, and doesn't have cited sources yet? If nothing else, the info can be placed in the article on rendition, but I doubt that article has any cites either. - BillCJ 03:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Rumors and speculation don't belong here. --rogerd 04:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment So please get busy and nominate Sewer alligator for deletion right away, and remove the line about the curse from Tutankhamun, and nominate Bigfoot quickly! Rumors don't belong here, and tell Nessie to immediately take a long walk off a short pier, oh, wait, a short walk off a long pier.  KP Botany 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it is an aircraft registration number supposedly used by the cia. I think supposedly is the key and it will most definatley fail WP:V.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a general rule, we don't have articles about a specific aircraft.  To merit one, that aircraft would really need to be encyclopedic.  This one clearly is not.  At best it could be part of a list in another article that would include information that meets WP:V. Vegaswikian 01:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not about the specific aircraft, it's about the rumors of the aircraft. KP Botany 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What if the owner/operator of the aircraft is a private citizen? Then it's a falsehood. I can make up any old crap and stick it here. How about: "KP Botany is a genetic descendant of the poplar family"? Let's make an article about it! &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to extraordinary rendition any applicable content. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Now it seems that we have other articles (N85VM, N4476S, and N44982) which should be given what ever treatment this article is given. Perhaps a simple List of aircraft used for rendition article containing the content of all four would be the best answer? &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - That works for me, as long as the word "rumored" doesn't appear in it! Akradecki 04:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - Sounds right to me, as well. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart  -  Receive My EviLove  07:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Is there any real verifiable proof that these aircraft were actually used for such missions? Without the word "rumor", nothing would appear in the article at all! Any info on the aircraft at all cannot really exist on its own outside of the rendition article. However, cosidering that article's length, this info couild be combine with another section there (I don't know which one) as a spin-off. - BillCJ 07:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose creating new article that is compilation of unsourced rumors without references. KP Botany 14:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, I still oppose this content. I am merely saying that in the event that the content is retained, it should be shunted into a different article as I just suggested. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - In response to all the above, including several suggestions for an article on and listing rendition aircraft, I have created just such an article, Rendition aircraft, which includes the info from the individual aircraft articles Joseph identified (these have then been merged and redirected). In doing so, I tried to cull out all the rumors. Where I could, I documented with references to verifiable media articles. Where I couldn't, but where the information seemed like it might be important, I added fact tags. I will leave these in place for a while, allowing other editors the opportunity to help cite the statements. Eventually, if no citations are generated, I will then go back though and deleted the uncited information in accordance with WP:V. I have also included the appropriate info from the N221SG article, and if this AfD does not result in deletion, I strongly suggest that it be redirected to the Rendition aircraft article. In doing this, I hope I have satisified everyone's concerns about not having unverified information and rumor in the encyclopedia, while still providing users with valuable information. Feel free to jump over to that page's talk page to fling your flaming darts my way. Akradecki 21:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No darts, you seem to have actually read what people wrote here, considered it, and related it to the articles of concern and Wikipedia policies and the value of an article--I'm not even going to check the article you created as I might have a heart attack from the shock. On that extraordinarily positive note (Akradecki's consideration of the material and concerns about the article, not my sarcastic note), I bow out of the contentious and purposeless atmosphere of WP:AfD.  KP Botany 22:38, 12 January 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.