Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Atlantic Airways Fleet


 * 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 delete.  Consensus is that this list is not independently notable and fails WP:NOT. Sandstein (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Atlantic Airways Fleet

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

WP:AIRLINES deemed registrations irrelevant, and article fails to achieve notability Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete criteria A1. Article has no context at all. -- neon white user page talk 02:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete A1 per Neon white. I will now tag the article accordingly. Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  02:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:AIRLINES consensus seems to be that fleet lists are generally not notable, and any exceptions must establish notability on a per-case basis. I also support removing similar sections that may be integrated into other articles, such as in most of the articles in Category:Airline fleets. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The fleet tables are basically copied one-for-one from their respective sources, and I don't see the benefit they give to the encyclopedia. Neither airline fleet is notable in any regard so they fail that basic page requirement.  WP:AIRLINES has also stated that registration tables should not be included in Fleet sections on any airline page, therefore merge requests are also irrelevant.  Neither page has substance, unlike some other fleet pages that exist on the encyclopedia, and plenty of time has been given for substance to be added.  NcSchu ( Talk ) 04:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. AIRLINES consensus seems to be that fleet lists aren't inherently notable, and I can't see anything in news that asserts the notability of the subject. Celarnor 20:50, 4 May 2008
 * I have declined the A1 speedy deletion because it is clear from the title and content what the article is. It is not an article lacking in context to the point where the subject cannot be identified since it is clearly a list of Virgin Atlantic aircraft. Still, I agree with the above discussion that individual planes lack notability, so delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it isnt clear at all what the point of the article is unless you are familar with airlines. It's all nonsense to me and likely to alot of editors and readers. -- neon white user page talk 12:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "nonsense" in this regard?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Meaning that there is nothing on the page to explain the meaning of the table and it's contents to people who arent already familar with airline fleets. -- neon white user page talk 22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Said article once existed within the Virgin Atlantic Airways article to list the various names of individual aircraft, and was moved to a dedicated list as a helper article to avoid clutter in the main article. This article should therefore not be assessed independently from its primary article.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But how is the information at all relevant enough for the main article anyway? I can't see how, especially, as I said, because the information is just copied and pasted from V-Flyer's database. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate list of information, and the fleet isn't notable at all.  There's no reason why every single aircraft should be listed in detail, regardless of whether it is on the main page or on its own page.  NcSchu ( Talk ) 18:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice with some interest that the individual who first split this table from the main page was none other than User:NcSchu. Could you perhaps explain why you made the split in the first place, yet now calls for its deletion? Why did you not delete the table outright from the main article if the reasons you cite were relevant in any circumstance?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I congratulate you on your detective work, but why does that even matter? I originally split it because I was a newer editor, and also because I didn't see a problem with it. Now that look it at it, I can't see at all how the information is relevant and/or notable. I guess in your perfect world people would never change their mind. NcSchu ( Talk ) 18:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course concensus can change, but I would expect better reasons than what you have cited. I find it all the more surprising that in this article's talkpage, you actually said "This page was created because it was taking up too much room on the existing Virgin Atlantic Airways page and it was agreed that because the information is relevant to the page but a bit too long, it would be best to put it on a separate page. This page is not meant to stand-alone" when someone questioned its existance, the very reasons I would argue that the article should be kept.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that I wasn't stating my opinion, but rather the small consensus gained on Virgin Atlantic's own talk page relating to the original split. Also note, that though I originally created the 'Virgin Atlantic Airways fleet' page, I created that only because another editor went along and created 'Virgin Atlantic fleet', the name of which I thought was incorrect and therefore corrected. My creating this page has no relevance as to my current thoughts. Upon reflection, I wouldn't consider the original decision to split the page to be based on any sound consensus. NcSchu ( Talk ) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact is that this article is in the mainspace of WP, and therefore the same policies apply to it as any other article. Whilst it is possible to have sub-articles, those sub-articles still need to be notable entities in themselves. For example, Australia has the sub-article History of Australia attached to it, which in turn has History of Australia before 1788 attached it. Each of these can be said to be sub-articles of its parent article, and each of these is notable on its own. Unfortunately the same can not be said of any of the articles within Category:Airlines fleets, which were moved from the main article due to cruftiness in the article proper, and as I have stated below, the solution to getting rid of horrible cruft is to delete it, not to create a separate article for it. Additionally, one tends to forget that concensus within WP:AIRLINES stands that these articles and tables (in regards to sprawling lists of registrations, etc) are not encyclopaedic and hence should be deleted. Additionally, the fact that these articles are not supported by reliable sources which discuss the topic in great details also needs to be taken into account --Россавиа Диалог 18:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete While I admit it would sometimes be handy to quickly look up individual aircraft, there are other places I can do that, and handy does not equal notable. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems to be rather useful information Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions 3.5 -- neon white user page talk 20:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:WEDONTNEEDIT, WP:BORING and WP:USELESS applies just as well in many of the "Delete" arguments in this debate.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the 'delete' comments on this page use any of those arguments whatsoever they are mainly centred on lack of notability and wikipedia is not a directory. -- neon white user page talk 22:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep This article seems moderately notable, but is quite boring. Coaststocoasts (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are many websites that list aircraft registrations in a database style manner. Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, is not one of them. WilliamH (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not an aviation enthusiast site. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per NcSchu. SempreVolando (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, it has long been held as concensus at WP:AIRLINES that sprawling lists of fleet tables and registrations, previous users, current operators, etc, etc are not encyclopaedic, with the exception of a few circumstances, such as Western Pacific Airlines, where the fleet itself actually was notable. Additionally, the sources being used for many of these articles are not reliable sources, they are mainly enthusiast sites with no expectation of fact checking and the like. Let's build an encyclopaedia here, and let's leave the fandom element to sites such as airliners.net. Furthermore, in the event that article length is ever used as a reason for the existence of these articles, the solution to horrible cruft is to delete it, not create a separate article for it. --Россавиа Диалог 18:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Understanding the fleet operated by an airline contributes to a better understanding of the airline, particularly when it relies heavily on a single model or manufacturer, or is a launch customer for a particular model. Retaining the fleet listing is also helpful in case one of the aircraft is involved in an incident and people search for the registration number. --Eastmain (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge the list of aircraft names makes this information notable. MickMacNee (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep while "notability is not inherited", this is a separate page for size reasons. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:05, 10 May 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.