Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of jet airliners

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of jet airliners[edit]

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

We already have lists of all kinds of aircraft (see: List of aircraft and Template:Lists of aircraft). This one is redundant. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main list of aircraft seems to be organised alphabetically which doesn't seem very useful. Airliners are a common type covered as a group in numerous sources such as The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Commercial Aircraft; Jane's Airlines and Airliners; Airliners of the World, &c. and so the topic satisfies WP:LISTN. The existence of templates, categories and other ways of doing this is irrelevant per WP:CLN. Andrew D. (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ a random list that is not really needed we have plenty of lists and categories covering the subject this doesnt add anything, wikipedia is not a holding area for made up lists. MilborneOne (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing random about this list - these are obviously the main types of modern commercial airliner. Where else would we go to get this information? The alphabetic list is useless for this purpose as it's so huge and indiscriminate that it is broken down by letter — e.g. List of aircraft (U) which is full of redlinks and obscure types. Andrew D. (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK I am convinced by your argument and withdrawn my delete, we have a lot worse lists on aircraft around (including some based on how many seats across and aircraft has! > List of regional airliners) it probably needs some tweaking and making sure it doesnt include to much trivia but that is a talk page issue. MilborneOne (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that one should go in the bin. Totally unreferenced article with an inclusion criteria based on another, poorly-referenced article on a topic that is pretty much restricted to countries like the US and Canada (at least, with that name). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whilst I'm rather unconvinced about issues with the organisation of another article being relevant here (turn that into a sortable wikitable, that solves most of your issues with it bar its size) and this article is in such a half-baked state that it shouldn't have gone into mainspace yet (looks like the creator got bored halfway through, but they do appear to be relatively new), I do think this list fills a valid purpose. There are indeed far too many aircraft around for them to be located in one large article (and the existence of a general template is irrelevant in my view), and this list has a reasonable inclusion criteria based on a notable topic. I'm not convinced that it should be restricted to purpose-built jet airliners, as there is definitely an overlap with some business jets and jet airliners, but that is a discussion to be had on the talk page. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thank you all for your comments. First of all, I apologize for I putting this article in the mainspace before it was ready to be fully viewed. That is a mistake I won't repeat. In terms of organiziation and content, I appreciate any constructive comment. From my perspective, the information I had wanted to develop is now present. Not surprisingly, I believe the article should be kept. However, if you elect to delete it, I would like to learn more about the wikipedia's standards so I don't repeat the mistake. Here's why I believe the article is notable:

Most members of the public have their most direct and most frequent contacts with aviation through airline travel. For the majority, travel is on jet airliners. Whether a person wishes to inquire about the background of the airplane they fly on or compare it to other airplanes, or address a general curiosity, this list provides quick and easy reference to all jet airliners. I think the list will receive frequent views and provide useful information to the public.
Wikipedia has an existing Jet airliner page. This list provides a useful companion link.
There is a significant group of hobbyists, industry historians and airline professionals who find this information useful, as evidenced by magazines such as Airliners and Air Transport World, and websites such as Airliners.net and Professional Pilots Rumour Network.
Many limited lists of aircraft have already been established in wikipedia, including List of civil aircraft, List of military aircraft of the United States, List of experimental aircraft, and other lists too numerous to count.

Again, I appreciate everyone's interest, and I hope this can be developed into a page that is an asset to wikipedia. I welcome any improvements. Regards, Mikepurves (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason given for deleting this. The article jet airliner explains what that is, and this list all the ones notable enough to have their own article, along with other useful information. Dream Focus 22:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all those above me - We're an encyclopedia and this is encyclopedic .... Don't mean to assume bad-faith but I really can't see the point in nominating this.... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 05:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep encyclopaedic and all entries are notable. LibStar (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. This is actually a list I have looked for in the past, so its nice someone has finally put it together. Trackinfo (talk) 22:55, 4 January 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.