Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naming of Qantas 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   keep but IMHO this does not make the notability issues go away. Maybe the possibility of a listification or a merger should be explored ... just an editorial suggestion.  Sandstein  17:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming of Qantas aircraft

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article fails notability guidelines as it is not clearly asserted in the article exactly why the naming of Qantas aircraft is notable. Qantas aircraft names have not been (after my own searches) the subject of any sources that are non-trivial in nature, nor is the subject covered by reliable sources (aircraft enthusiast websites are definitely not reliable sources). It is also concensus on WP:AIRLINES that fleets are generally not notable (with a minute number of exceptions) and hence not encyclopaedic, and it is my own opinion that such information on WP is nothing more than fancruft. It appears that this information may have been moved here due to article length issues on the main article, however, as oft quoted, the solution to horrible cruft is to delete it, not create a separate article for it. Россавиа Диалог 13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- Россавиа Диалог 13:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   -- Россавиа Диалог 13:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: I found it interesting. The naming of the newest A380 Airbus has got media coverage (Courier Mail). I remember the first Boeing 747-400 aircraft also got coverage, but that was back around 1989, so references get harder to obtain in that era. Maybe the Wikipedia article needs to be better referenced. -- Lester  21:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand per Lester. Certainly I believe references from reliable sources that are not aircraft enthusiast websites can be found.  At least as interesting as the naming of Pokemon cards - in fact of more interest to some of us - ie Australians who have from time to time noticed the name of the plane they are travelling on. --Matilda talk 22:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For example this article originally from England's Daily Telegraph in 2000 refers to the name of the Qantas planes. The imagery and naming of some of the planes to celebrate International Year of the World's Indigenous People on which we have no article - see 1993 in International observance .  For further refs concerning Wunala Dreaming see Powerhouse museum ref and artshub ref for two reliable sources not of aviation enthusaists. --Matilda talk 23:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now added a number of sources that would I feel meet the WP:RS guideline and would not be described as "aircraft enthusiast websites" --Matilda talk 01:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, none of the articles referenced 1) give notability to the subject in question and 2) are anything but trivial mentions. The Courier Mail article is about the A380, not the naming of the aircraft. The Daily Telegraph article is on the commercial use of Aboriginal culture to sell products, not on Nalanji or Wunala. The Qantas article itself doesn't mention this naming in any form other than trivial mention. Many airlines give their aircraft names, and there is no demonstration in this article why the names of Qantas aircraft are notable over all other airlines (for which is removed from articles for being trivial and unencyclopaedic). WP:INTERESTING is not a reasoning to use in AfD discussions, it needs to be done on policy and concensus based on policy. And not to mention concensus on WP:AIRLINES that individual aircraft details such as this are unencyclopaedic. --Россавиа Диалог 01:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why do you think all those newspapers named the aircraft? Obviously the newspapers thought that the public wants to know. The newspapers could easily have omitted that information, if they thought nobody wants to know.-- Lester  03:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:INTERESTING is not a good reasoning to use in AfD discussions, but it could be said that referring to an article as "horrible cruft" is an "I don't like it" argument, which likewise should have little place in an AfD discussion, let alone the nomination. Saying that other airlines don't have articles on their naming schemes is also a point of argument to be avoided (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). --Canley (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My fancruft comment is my opinion; it is my opinion it is fancruft; as much as most Pokemon articles are fancruft (with no apologies to Pokemon fans); there is probably good reason that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST in this area of fandom. However, on this article there is no assertion of notability, which is not backed up by multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources is not opinion, but fact. Wunala and Nalanji are notable aircraft, and it is kind of odd that the main article mentions these aircraft only in passing (only once), and I wouldn't object to the main article going into detail on how the airline markets itself (without being advertorial in nature), and include details on Balarinji involvement with Qantas. This article offers absolutely no context at all, it is simply a list of names which offers no opportunity for further article development. --Россавиа Диалог 04:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment re Notability of aircraft - Россавиа states Wunala and Nalanji are notable aircraft - they are only notable because of their names and artwork - this article may be incorrectly titled but it seems the best article to deal with aircraft named after indigenous themes and the issues surrounding that naming. The sources in relation to these names and issues associated with them are reliable and the dealing with those issues is non-trivial --Matilda talk 02:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The names of all Qantas aircraft until at the earliest 1970 are verifiable from John Gunn's series of books on the history of Qantas: The Defeat of Distance, Challenging Horizons and High Corridors, published by the University of Queensland Press. After that, they are for the most part covered by media references. Notability (a guideline, not a policy) is by no means clear-cut for topics like this, and dismissing references as "trivial", coupled with the nominator's determination to delete what they personally see as "cruft", seems to me like a subjective attempt to dress one editor's opinion up as policy. Россавиа will no doubt reply, so can they please link to the claimed consensus on WP:AIRLINES that has been mentioned twice? I can't seem to find it. --Canley (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia generally allows material which is verifiable and does not require original synthesis to produce to remain on the encyclopaedia for what I'd call abstracted subjects. Qantas is the 10th largest airline in the world, and this information has significant secondary sources documenting it. Additionally, it causes undue weight issues within the Qantas article itself, so makes sense to have it in a different article. Orderinchaos 11:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The Perth Yellow Pages is verifiable, easily done by ringing each and every number contained therein, however, we have various things that we do and don't cover. We don't list the entire contents of the Perth Yellow Pages because Wikipedia is not a telephone directory, even though it is entirely verifiable. Whilst verifiability is a policy for inclusion on WP, not all verifiable information out there in the world is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and as yet, there is not a single indication, either in the article or in this AfD which gives the subject Naming of Qantas aircraft any degree of notability. How is the name of a Qantas aircraft any more notable than RA-96005 "Valery Chkalov", an Ilyushin Il-96 of Aeroflot; Aeroflot once being the world's largest airline with 10,000+ aircraft? And lastly, the solution to getting rid of cruft is to delete it, not to create a separate article for it. --Россавиа Диалог 12:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It isn't, and I would quite like to see an article on Aeroflot's fleet or naming scheme, and would support its creation and upkeep if you were to create such an article. --Canley (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is quite well-referenced (the quality of the references isn't an issue that should be resolved by deletion of the article), so I have a problem with deleting it. I think there's plenty of room for improvement that can move it away from being strictly a list. As Qantas (QANTAS) is one of the oldest airlines in the world it would seem proper to have an article on a fleet history that is probably the most diverse and extensive of any other airline that has ever existed, especially since the airline's fleet has had names for 80+ years. I am also fairly certain that the only consensus on Airline fleets reached by WP:AIRLINES is that airline registration tables are not notable. NcSchu ( Talk ) 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:N states;
 * If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.


 * In regards to this article, we no doubt have independent, reliable sources for some of this information, however, there is not significant coverage, again from WP:N;


 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.


 * There are no sources which address Naming of Qantas aircraft directly in detail; there is no notability. Whilst there is apparently a book which gives the names of aircraft up until the 1970s, this should be used in the main article as an inline citation for prose, not split out into a separate list for reasons of space (as I said, the solution to cruft is to delete it, not create a separate article for it), particularly when the article subject is not notable. Refer to this Afd, which was a break off from the main article, which included as well as registrations (which WP:AIRLINES has concensus on in regards to notability), the names of each individual aircraft. There is also this Afd which had the same information. There is also the Thai Airways International fleet article which was merged back into the main article, minus the information which WP:AIRLINES does not regard as being notable or encyclopaedic (including getting rid of individual aircraft names). The only article which currently exists is Singapore Airlines fleet, however, this is currently the subject of a mediation due to multiple other issues regarding that subject's articles. --Россавиа Диалог 13:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that a Google Books Search for 'Qantas aircraft names' brings up several good resources regarding Qantas aircraft history, a few of which have tables of early aircraft names. I'm sure different searches might bring up different and more broad results. But it seems clear to me that Qantas's fleet has the history necessary to warrant this article. NcSchu ( Talk ) 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment And how many of those sources discuss Naming of Qantas aircraft in great detail in anything than just in passing? Google hits and the like are great at times, however, in this case it simply picks up different sources which discuss in only a trivial manner. --Россавиа Диалог 12:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite a few, surprisingly. NcSchu ( Talk ) 15:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Sorry I cant see anything notable about the naming scheme or the individual aircraft that cant be a one-liner in the Qantas article. I know it is not an excuse but most major airlines have a naming scheme, none of them particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep:It has potential and should stay.Sparrowman980 (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep pers Orderinchaos reasonaing above - SatuSuro 00:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is hardly a great article, but I don't see any reason to delete it. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment How about because it lacks notability, which is not backed up by multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources? In addition to concensus on WP:AIRLINES that registrations and names are not notable, not encyclopaedic? --Россавиа Диалог 10:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - the article is well referenced. But the references only verify the names of the aircraft.  The topic of "Naming of Qantas aircraft" isn't actually being covered in any substantial way.  As such, it doesn't meet the notability criteria of being the subject of multiple reliable sources.  The naming scheme is a passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I normally hate "per X" explanations, but Orderinchaos has put it superbly above. A topic of obvious interest, cites provided... I don't see the problem.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep Having flown on many long-distance flights, I'm very much interested in the identity of individual planes when incidents occur. This has come to the fore again today with the incident involving the "City of Newcastle" (Longreach)  Melburnian (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is about a hole in the side of a Qantas aircraft, not about Naming of Qantas aircraft, and of course that article is indicative of why this is at AfD in the first place, because the mentions are trivial and not substantial.


 * Keep I consider the information notable as I was looking for information on Qantas aircraft naming. When I got to the page I was shocked to discover it has been nominated for deletion. Robert Brockway (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If you consider the information notable, is there anything to back the opinion up with multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources which discuss the naming of aircraft in substantial detail? --Россавиа Диалог 01:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename this is a list so suggest List of Qantas aircraft, include date it entered the fleet(if known) type, name, links to event articles, images. Qantas aircraft have been extensively involve in Australian history and some of the individual planes or groups of planes(aka Catalinas and C-class flying boats) have notability in their own right. Like this sourcing while you say its trivial for the naming actual Россавиа agrees it asserts notability for the aircraft Courier Mail article is about the A380. As per WP:LIST Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information. Lists may be found within the body of a prose article, or as a stand-alone article.. Gnangarra 10:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't agree that article gives any degree of notability to the issue of the names of aircraft in Qantas fleet; it merely asserts verifiability that the A380 will be operated by Qantas, it can be used as an inline citation in the main article for the entry into service of the A380, but for naming of individual aircraft as a whole, it is trivial. As to a list of aircraft, if it includes details on every single aircraft (registrations, names, etc), then it is clearly going against concensus which WP:AIRLINES has reached on this issue in the past, and which can be evidenced by past AfD's above, much as the list as it stands right now goes against concensus on WP:AIRLINES. Whilst WP:LIST says lists can be used to organise information, WP:N says that material must be covered by multiple, non-trivial sources and that material needs to meet WP:CONCENSUS, which has already been reached at WP:AIRLINES. What it seems other Australians here seem to be trying to do is to change concensus reached at WP:AIRLINES based upon the subject being Qantas, whilst ignoring that the naming of Qantas aircraft is not notable at all, evidenced by past AfD discussions, and I believe that non-notability of this subject has been more than demonstrated in that no-one has supplied anything but trivial sources for the naming structure. I would not object to an article being re-created in the future which details the history of the Qantas fleet, so long as the notability of the fleet as a whole is established by the use of non-trivial reliable sources. Take for example, User:Russavia/SU fleet which I am working on as part of a complete overhaul in the future of Aeroflot, which will totally omit the registrations and names of aircraft....do we really need to have a list of all the tens of thousands of aircraft which Aeroflot has operated throughout its history. Would a complete breakdown of all 91 Antonov An-10 which Aeroflot has operated, includings names/registrations, give anything to the overall table? It is the concensus on WP:AIRLINES that it would not, and is not encyclopaedic and is somewhat fanboyish (that last part is my own opinion, and perhaps the opinion of other editors), and the notability of the Aeroflot fleet can be established by the multitude of books, journals, magazines, etc devoted entirely to the fleet itself; no doubt Qantas is the same, however, this article as it stands now should go. --Россавиа Диалог 11:22, 27 July 2008 (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.