Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of aircraft by tail number

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.  Sandstein  12:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft by tail number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What is the purpose of this list? It's not a list of all aircraft that have an individual article on Wikipedia, only those with a tail number. But it's hardly a logical characteristic to group articles by. Date, death toll (for the crash articles), manufacturer, ... all would make a lot more sense. The tail numbers are included in the individual articles and searching on them in the search box (or Google) works just fine, so this isn't needed for navigational purposes either (or does anyone want to access our articles in the order of this list? Seems unlikely, as it is a largely random order in most countries). At 118K, a lot of work must have gone into this list, but that's hardly a reason to keep it around. Fram (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Tail numbers are quite logical as IDs for people interested in aircraft; that's why the numbers are marked on the aircraft, rather like the way that ships have names. The list seems useful for navigation and generic search functions would not be so good as the tail numbers can be quite ordinary numbers, such as 101, which don't make good search keywords. As for the amount of work, that is a reason to keep this around. All that deletion does is make the list viewable by admins only and how does that help anyone? If we felt there was a better structure for this sort of data then there are more sensible alternatives to deletion, such as making it a draft, which wouldn't be so disruptive. Andrew D. (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cars have license plates, but no one would order cars by license plates (as an encyclopedic list). And no, the amount of work is never a reason to keep anything around (nor to delete it, of course). Making it a draft is only useful if you (someone) is planning to do anything with it to solve the problems: it can't stay as a draft interminably, and it makes no sense to turn it into a draft only to put it back as is later. Fram (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are numerous topics for which codes or numbers are an appropriate form of index - examples include stars known only by a catalogue number; Mozart's works, which are referenced by their Köchel number; complex chemicals such as enzymes and genes; &c. The list in question is a list of notable individual aircraft, rather than a type of named aircraft design, and the registration number seems to be the best way of identifying these particular notable specimens. If there's a better way of doing this then let's hear it. As for cars, there may well be examples for which the licence plate is a good index. Gerald Nabarro used to be famous for having a car with the number plate NAB1. The blue link NAB1 takes us to a protein instead. Perhaps we need some disambiguation? Until we have all this data nicely organised, it's best to leave it where readers and editors can find it and that is mainspace. Andrew D. (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do we need to organize these data though? A list of all articles on aircraft which have a tail number? That is an important list because...? What sets these apart from the aircraft with articles but without a tail number? You are creating a list of a random subset of the notable aircraft group, and haven't given a good reason for having a list for only this subset. Fram (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't a subset; it seems to be the main list of individual aircraft. The only other list of notable specimens that I can see is list of aircraft in the Smithsonian Institution and that is more clearly a subset. Per aircraft registration#International standards, an international convention was established quite early in aviation and so only the earliest models such as the Blériot XI would be before that. Andrew D. (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • That we don't have a full list doesn't mean that this isn't a subset. It is a subset of all aircraft with an individual article on Wikipedia, based on whether they have a tail number or not. That is a very poor defining criterium for a list. Fram (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're still not getting it. The point is not to list aircraft that happen to have a tail number because just about all aircraft have tail numbers. The point of the list is to index all individual aircraft for which we have articles. This list is then structured by military/civil and by country. It's only when you get to the country level that it then uses the registration number and that's because the registration number is the standard way of uniquely referencing the aircraft. You're not offering any better way of structuring this information. Andrew D. (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or move out of article space. Tail numbers are a useful and standard way to identify aircraft. They can be compared to ISBN numbers for books, authority control numbers for authors, or geographic coordinates for places. Perhaps a better way to organize this information would be as some sort of metadata associated with pages about aircraft. Someone who is more familiar with wiki metadata may be able to provide more information on how this could be done. Pburka (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP - Apart from tying aircraft by registration to relevant articles, this list serves a useful purpose in maintaining Wikipedia by keeping non-notable aircrashes out. This is facilitated by editors who watch this list, and scrutinise new entries whenever they are added to the list. Apart from helping readers to find articles, it also serves a useful editorial/maintenance purpose. What harm is it doing? Absolutely none that I can see. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a content policy which says that content of value only to editors may be maintained in the main article space? The argument based on editorial value appears to fail WP:USEFUL because this list does not benefit the reader. See also WP:NOHARM. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep unless sourced with verifiable materials, otherwise weak keep - Where are the sources for this information? This is very technical info and should have sources we can review. References point to off line books and lists. I am unable to verify any of this content is even accurate. DangerDogWest (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerDogWest: - the linked articles in the 3rd column are the references. Although in article space, this is not an article/list in the ordinary sense. I'm not sure what you mean by "References point to off line books and lists" but WP:V only requires that if a reference is given it is verifiable, not that you personally can verify it there and then. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I found the references. I'll update my vote. DangerDogWest (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Readers don't need this list: if you know the serial you can just type it in, if you don't then this list is far too long and cryptic to identify it. If every plane with its own article is to be listed somewhere for maintenance purposes, categories are expressly intended for this purpose. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC) [clarified 09:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)][reply]

• Keep - per Mjroots. Nothing more needs to be said. - BilCat (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd suggest that an answer to the question I subsequently asked in reply does need to be said. This may be one reason why this debate has been relisted a second time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename List of individual aircraft and add time period, civilian/military, possibly some sort of measure of size/weight/capacity, etc. as well. The tail number is a bit of a red herring; it's just one small datum of the major information about each entry. Category:Individual aircraft and its subcategories encompass a couple of hundred articles, so it wouldn't be unmanageable. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, leaning towards delete. Even if people searched by tail number (falling afoul of WP:USEFUL), this article is so chopped up into tables that it would be easier just using the search box. Most of the entries are airplanes that crashed, so List of individual aircraft would not be substantially the same list. I'll probably create that list regardless of the outcome of this Afd. I've created that list. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This list seems unnecessary, since a reader is unlikely to start with some tail number and want to go from there to an article about the airplane. I would also not want a list of addresses of notable people and organizations, or a list of ISBNs of notable books, or a list of license plate numbers or VIN numbers of notable vehicles, or a list of serial numbers of notable locomotive engines, or a list of inmate numbers of notable prison inmates. or a list of badge numbers of notable police officers. Not every list that could be created needs to be created. Edison (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• weak keep the article isn't optimal, and the sources are buried in the articles, but it could be improved. I know that tail numbering schema is in widespread use in the US, for example: N###UA is typical for United Airlines, N###AA is for American Airlines, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete best reason I see for keeping is that it might be useful, does not seem to be though. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of individual aircraft, adding a tail number column and country to the table in that article, as well as the airplanes that are currently in the List of aircraft by tail number but not in the List of individual aircraft. That way, it is possible to sort the information not only by tail number, but also by other criteria. Would be a pity to delete the valuable information gathered for this article. Martinogk (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.