Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Boeing 787 orders and deliveries

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The AfD was withdrawn by nominator, and anyway the result was keep 3-2 L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boeing 787 orders and deliveries[edit]

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

Wikipedia is Not listings EDIT NOMINATOR IS CONSIDERING retracting AfD Edit Withdrawn by nominator L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is a collection of statistics without any context, failing WP:NOTSTATS (#3) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 23:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This would seem to be a valid member of Category:Lists of aircraft orders and deliveries, for a highly notable aircraft. The statement above that it is "a collection of statistics without any context" is obviously patent nonsense. One may object to this list, but it is clearly contextualized. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: It is a indiscriminate list failing WP:CSC. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 02:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it isn't. But whatever. Let's see what consensus is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't understand nominator's rationale. Article is well sourced, maintained and used in context with the aircraft article -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Whats new? I think it is a well written article, and is probably helpful to someone, however, I'm not sure how it endimic to Wikipedia's goals. I am open to being persuaded. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well an AfD needs rationale to delete, and I'm not sure what yours was. It is sourced so WP:V is not an issue, and orders and deliveries of these planes are well covered in RS so WP:N is met as well. Seems to me that this (and similar) articles about aircraft orders and deliveries have been split out into separate articles only because their inclusion in their parent article would make the sections too long. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale was "I don't believe this article belongs on Wikipedia". I'm not going to cire NOTABILITY because that would be useless. However, I have reviewed both the article, and the 787 article and I am agree that this article is not bad. What I don't get, is, why do we care who has ordered how many planes?? I have been interested in planes for a long time, but I fail to see why order forms, no matter how well written and sourced, are interesting enough to be on Wikipeda.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 03:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that's not really a valid rationale per WP:DEL-REASON. Wikipedia is not about what is interesting to you. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would seem to be an example of WP:WHOCARES, which is not the sort of thing that represents a policy-based argument. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~List of Boeing 787 operators is quite sufficient.~~ It's already well summarized at Boeing 787 Dreamliner#Orders and deliveries. Wikipedia is not a trade journal. Also delete the other orders and deliveries lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dare say the reason why this article exists is because including it all at Boeing 787 Dreamliner would make that article section too long, and it was appropriately broken out with the summary left in. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Per Shawn in Montreal Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 06:49, 1 February 2017 (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.