Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commercial failures in aviation

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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercial failures in aviation[edit]

Delete unless a neutral, verifiable definition of "commercial failure" can be found. Recently, a lot of "commercial failure" lists have been deleted, including List of miscellaneous commercial failures, from which this page descends. All the problems of the original list and the other deleted "flop" lists apply to this one: it's an inherently POV list or repository of loosely associated topics. szyslak (t, c) 20:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Examining the list, there does seem to be sufficient appropriate material,m and it is usefully collected here.DGG 05:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nomination that the term "commercial failure" is not well defined. This is illustrated very well by the first entry on the list, the Airbus A318. Some would argue that the lower sales of this aircraft compared to the A319 and A320 constitutes a "failure", others might argue that this shortened version is a niche product which was a moderately successful aircraft for the airlines who wanted a smaller version. One could say that some of the entries are "failures" by most reasonable definitions, that is the ones which never got off the ground, the Boeing 2707 for instance. But there is a big gray zone here. Where to draw the line between "commercial failure", "disappointing sales", "not as well as hoped", and "moderately successful niche product" is inherently subjective, leaving the conditions for inclusion on the list as a poor discriminator. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completey OR and no verifiable. It is a joke to think they will all be sourced and maintained.--155.144.251.120 03:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a decent concept at the heart of this list, but the concept can't be realized in this context. The nom is correct that the current premise is insufficiently defined and invites original research. We need to start over.--Kubigula (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2007 (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.