Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of large aircraft

:{{la|List of large aircraft}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_large_aircraft Stats])

:({{Find sources|List of large aircraft}})

This list is just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection with no objective criteria for inclusion. There is already an article on Large aircraft, and any relevant information has already been copied across there. This page should be either deleted or replaced with a redirect. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

[Update] To help dispel a common misconception in some comments below, there are already Lists of largest aicraft (as opposed to "large") in the article on large aircraft. Even taken together, these lists are quite short. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

[Update] A preliminary discussion of this and related issues may be found here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep (Nominator's vote). Since the FAA definition of a "large aircraft" has been unearthed, this list is no longer indiscriminate and I regard my original grounds for nominating it here as no longer valid. It may need editing to conform to the FAA criteria (and any others which may exist). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC) - see cmt following relisting. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, man is always trying to make larger aircraft to transport people or goods, so it's not WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Theamazo (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

:So, what are the objective criteria for inclusion that make this list stand alone from the article on large aircraft? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

::The criteria for inclusion can be whatever the industry and media decide.--Theamazo (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

:::That's a WP:VAGUEWAVE if I ever saw one. There is no declared criteria by that standard. And what was large in 1914 is wildly different than what's large in 2014. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Not only is this a subjective, indiscriminate list as the OP observes, but the small amount of information it does provide is already available, with context, in large aircraft. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete very subjective list Secret ^account 00:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - "large" is so indiscriminate it's pointless in this context. "Large" by what standard? Simply larger than the last generation? The 777 was "large" when it was introduced, not so much any more when compared to the A380. But it's still larger than a Cessna and a Dash-8. In turn, the Dash-8 is also "large" when compared to a Cessna, but "small" next to a C17 Globemaster. That said, the Dash-8 would be "too large" to land at most small regional airstrips. Why wouldn't it be considered "large" for the purposes of this list? You see where I'm going, right? Stalwart111 06:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• :I clarified what large aircraft means in the article. The Federal Aviation Administration defines a large aircraft as any aircraft of more than 12,500 pounds as its maximum certificated takeoff weight. [http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2091-37A.pdf] Dream Focus 04:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment If we have an article on large aircraft which nobody above objects to, surely that means "large aircraft" is a valid topic? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

::Large aircraft are a valid topic, listing them need not be. The Large aircraft article already includes lists by type of largest aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete; unmanageable list with unclear scope. I'm sure there are editors who like to edit it, but I see little benefit for readers, when we have good quality sourced prose and a list over at Large aircraft. bobrayner (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: It seems like this list could be salvaged by a rename to "List of largest aircraft" and setting minimum criteria for inclusion (a cursory glace would suggest a minimum max takeoff weight, but I don't know enough about the subject to suggest where that cutoff point would be). --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 22:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

::That list is already included in the Large aircraft article, as it is too short to warrant a standalone page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: Far too vague, with no inclusion criteria. - Ahunt (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep The article large aircraft was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_aircraft&diff=600715618&oldid=88489613 created recently] and the nomination tells us that material from this article was copied into that one. What has been done is therefore a cut-and-paste move as a content fork and so deletion would therefore be quite improper. The page which is proposed for deletion is the older of the two, having been created eight years ago, and so its long edit history must be kept for attribution of the numerous contributors. Furthermore, institutions such as the FAA have precise definitions of large aircraft ([http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/faa-definitions.html#L. > 12,500 pounds]) and these definitions are used in important regulations. For example, [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=71o8dq83Hs8C&pg=PA153 co-pilots are required] on aircraft of this size. The claims above that the topic is too vague to be capable of definition are therefore quite false. Andrew (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: The FAA and ICAO definitions of large aircraft has no bearing on the supposed subject of this article, as this article is only dealing with "very large aircraft" and not complying with that definition. The two are essentially different subjects, which is even more reason to delete this article. Also the argument that because another article uses content from this one and therefore this one cannot be deleted is spurious. It merely has to be attributed. - Ahunt (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• You complain above that the page has no inclusion criteria. Now you're claiming that it has some criterion which differs from the FAA definition. You can't have it both ways. The page and its fork are named large aircraft and so the official definitions of a large aircraft would be helpful in sharpening up the scope of the topic. Note that, if we should want to focus upon especially large aircraft, that there are further classifications of heavy (>300,000 pounds) and super which are used in the regulation of wake turbulence. So, there's ample possibility of refining the scope along such lines. Such improvement would be best done by ordinary editing so that attribution is maintained in the customary way - by maintaining the edit history. As the nominator clearly wants to write about large aircraft and his fork includes lists of large aircraft, copied from this one, there seems to be no practical point in this nomination. The obvious alternative to deletion would be merger of the pages. Andrew (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Even attribution is probably not required. We try and maintain attribution per out license, that attribution is only required if there is some copyrightable material covered under out license. Bare lists of fact without creative content aren't copyrightable, so no such attribution is required (It'd be pretty indistinguishable as if two independent people had compiled the lists rather than copy). e.g. see Feist v. Rural --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• WP:MAD explains the matter well. Attribution is explicitly required by our licence. As redirection is a cheap way of maintaining the edit history, the onus is on those calling for deletion to explain why the obfuscation of the history is needed. Andrew (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• The relevant guideline is WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed. The lists' selection criteria – largest aircraft by type – is factual. Comparing the tables in {{oldid2|600715618|Lists of largest aircraft|Large aircraft#Lists of largest aircraft at initial expansion}} to {{oldid|List of large aircraft|600713337|List of large aircraft at that time}}, I found one copied sentence about the Ekranoplan KM. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Whenever these things came out, there would be media coverage of them being the largest aircraft of their type. Books talking about the history of aircraft, would list them. Too much information to be merged to the other article. The fact that someone copied some of the information from here to another article, is irrelevant. A more complete list is here. Searching for the first aircraft on the list in Google newspaper, and the phrase "largest aircraft" I find results straight away. [https://www.google.com/search?q=Antonov%20An-225%20Mriya%20%22largest%20aircraft%22%20site:news.google.com/newspapers&source=newspapers] Dream Focus 22:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

::As I see it, DF, that's part of the problem. This is a list of large aircraft, not largest aircraft and that's an important distinction. "Largest" would be much easier to work with - an aircraft is either the largest of its era, or class, or type or capacity or purpose, or it's not. As long as we explain why it is "the largest" in whatever context, that would be okay. But that's not what this list is - it's a list of "large" aircraft with no proper definition of what that means. Stalwart111 23:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

:::So just rename it. Obviously its a list of the largest of each type or era. Never delete an article that just needs a rename and some work on it. Dream Focus 23:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

::::Well, it would be a matter of renaming it and reworking the content to suit the new title with sourced explanations for each category and the like. But I would not have strong objections to a result like that. I think its interesting and while that's not a particular good reason to keep something, it is a good reason to put some effort into trying where possible. There are plenty of "List of the largest/longest/highest..." articles. Stalwart111 01:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. No meaningful inclusion criteria, as any Wikipedia list is required to have. Many of the aircraft included are described as 'largest' without defining the term (weight, wingspan, wing area, or what?), and the article cites almost no sources. Furthermore, as is noted on the talk page, some of the information (e.g. Tupolev Tu-160) seems to be just plain wrong. If someone wants to keep a copy of this in their sandbox I can't see any objection, but it doesn't belong in article space - it simply lacks meaningful encyclopaedic utility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

:* The Tu-160 obviously belongs on the list as it is easy to find a source confirming that it is "[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OGTGKbnQgFEC&pg=PA478 the largest and heaviest bomber ever built]". If it has rivals to the claim then that's fine because the list can cover all large aircraft, not just the largest. Note that list of aircraft is a blue link and so it is quite reasonable and encyclopedic to have subsets based upon size, weight, class, etc. - see {{tl|lists of aircraft}}. Any decent encyclopedia of aircraft should contain such material because readers will obviously be interested in the big aircraft, just as they want to know about long rivers, large cities, high mountains, fast cars, &c. Andrew (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

::*Further to my comment above. We have articles about the longest rivers, largest cities, highest mountains. Not simply List of long rivers or List of large cities (which redirects to World's largest cities). I think it would be a different story if we were talking about a list with a plainer and more consistent title like List of the largest aircraft. Stalwart111 23:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Additional boxes on the chart can be added listing the weight and size of aircraft, like they have at Wide-body_aircraft#Specifications_of_wide-body_aircraft. Wouldn't be hard to just copy that information over from their main articles. Dream Focus 00:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and fix. A list of the largest and heaviest aircraft is clearly a valid topic. I don't see why any problems with the list can't be fixed. AfD isn't cleanup. Deletion won't work because the page history is needed to maintain attribution for the other article. There would have to be a history merge at least. It may be the page should be renamed. James500 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

::At risk of repetition, there are already Lists of largest aircraft in the article on large aircraft. Even taken together, these lists are quite short. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

:::You took information from this page and created a separate article over there. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_aircraft&diff=600715618&oldid=88489613] On 17 November 2006 it was created as a redirect to this article, and then on 22 March 2014 you changed it to have information from this article over there. There is enough valid information to fill an entire article. Dream Focus 10:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

::::LOL. Half-baked research, donch'a love it. Another editor started a discussion on the Aviation WikiProject talk page here. Arising from that I drafted a whole lot of new content and only later copied into the draft a smaller amount of what I saw as relevant list material. Then I asked the WikiProject for comment before copying the whole draft over the (then) redirect at Large aircraft. Nobody at the time suggested that refactoring the list page as not-a-list and then moving over the redirect would be a suitable approach. Had you researched the history a tad more thoroughly, you would have been aware of all this and might not have formed the mistaken views you express. Still, it is kind of you to judge my new and original content as "enough valid information to fill an entire article." — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

:::::* The discussion at WikiProject_Aviation already indicated that there was no consensus for deletion. Starting another discussion here seems to be forum-shopping. Andrew (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

:::::::No and no again. It's more than just a couple of bolded keep' votes, you know. I count only four keep votes out of ten. That was an informal discussion with a narrow audience, and in it submission to AfD was expressly suggested as the next step. I obliged, deliberately opening the present discussion to the likes of your good self. You lob forum-shopping at me, may I return the volley with WP:NPA and let us henceforth focus on the matter in hand. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)

• Keep This page is similiar to the pages that detail/list the largest ships and the various speed records.174.22.11.49 (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

::Rewrite to match the format and standards used for the various ships lists that list the longest ships and yachts. Another option is to transfer all the information to the Large aircraft page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.8.68 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

::No. As explained many times, this is "large" not "largest" and is more comparable to a list of "large ships" or of "fast vehicles". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

:::As explained many times, we can just rename it to say "largest" instead of "large", since it does list the largest aircraft of each type. It doesn't matter what you call it though. The introduction now reads, as it did when the article was first created, "This is a list of notably large aircraft." We have plenty of articles like this: List of large sailing vessels, List of large sailing yachts, List of large volcanic eruptions, List of large optical telescopes, List of large Hindu temples, etc. Dream Focus 12:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

::::We can do, but that is not what this editor voted for: voting to keep the present title and to move the page to a new title are different things, see WP:AFDFORMAT, however much you personally think it does not matter which. I can only go on what people say, not on what you imagine them to be trying to say. Your claim it lists the largest of each type is also false, it omits several which are in the lists of largest aircraft and at the same time includes others with no pretensions to largest. Those other articles you note have well-defined inclusion criteria, while the discussion I refer to above led to several expressions of the impracticality of such criteria for this list - your examples thus neatly highlight the main rationale for my submitting it to AfD. What we need to decide here is whether that rationale is justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelpillow (talk • contribs) 13:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - As others have already stated, the inclusion criteria for "large" aircraft is so vague that it borders on useless for an encyclopedic source of information. While the actual article on Large aircraft may be a considerably more recent creation, it is better sourced, and includes a much more feasible list of largest aircraft. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Update Improvement of the page in question has started. Sources which focus specifically upon large aircraft have been added, including:

::*{{citation |title=Big Wings |first=Philip |last=Kaplan |publisher=Pen & Sword Aviation |year=2005 |isbn=978-1844151783}}

::*{{citation |chapter=Goliaths of the Air |pages=62-67 |title=Aviation's Most Wanted |first=Steven |last=Ruffin |publisher=Potomac |year=2005 |isbn=978-1574886740}}

:::These sources demonstrate that the topic passes WP:LISTN. Andrew (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep The criteria of "large" is defined in the lead section, and editors decide what is notable. There is no policy or even guideline to deny editors who want to work on this article. -- GreenC 15:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

::So, I am free to add the de Havilland Heron and Beechcraft King Air 350 to the list as notably small large aircraft am I? The Armstrong Whitworth AW.660 Argosy must be included, it is the largest British-built twin-boom four-turboprop-engine aircraft. I have a contemporary source stating that a Douglas DC-2 is a "giant" aircraft, better put that in the list too. Or, delete due to it having no proper inclusion criteria. YSSYguy (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - Largest aircraft is notable and is of high interest. Also, because the nominator changed decision to keep. Article could possibly need a name change. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 11:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITSINTERESTING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Of course the fact that it is interesting enough that List_of_large_aircraft has been viewed 48,845 times in the last 30 days, isn't relevant. But if they say it "is notable", instead of writing out "is notable because it meets the relevant guideline" or "I agree with what others have said concerning the notability of this article", I don't see a problem there. Dream Focus 04:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• [http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/big-wings-philip-kaplan/1114891351?ean=9781844151783 Big Wings:The largest Aeroplane Ever Built] a book about many of the largest aircraft. [http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/01/aviation-aerospace-planes-biz-cx_rm_0604bigplanes.html Forbes - The World's Biggest Planes], [http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/01/aviation-aerospace-planes-biz-cx_rm_0604bigplanes_slides1.html Forbes - In pictures]. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 07:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

---

• Relisting comment: Since the majority of the !votes came in before the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_large_aircraft&diff=605951835&oldid=605652881 definition] of a "large aircraft" was added, I am relisting it to allow for further discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete ... To be honest this article seems to be a duplicate of Large aircraft, The list at LA goes in to far better detail and also has IMO a better list. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• :This article is much older, that other one rather new. This article has far more aircraft listed. Merging information from one to the other can be done though. If most of the article is a list, then "list of" should be in its name. Dream Focus 16:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge into Large aircraft#List of largest aircraft - most votes to keep are based around largest aircraft, so let's do that, then. Re. the newer article on large aircraft, that was created with shedloads of new material because it is not just a list, and this one was (and still is) so pathetically flawed it was and is beyond redemption. [FWIW I reckon relisting gets me out of my original reason for AfD-ing it, so I am entitled to change my vote on that basis]. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• :We need a list of all the most notable large aircraft, not just the largest. If all the information from this article was merged over, it'd be declared too large of an article, and split off as a valid content fork. Dream Focus 00:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• ::Why do we need that list? pbp 20:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely keep the older of the two articles, and seems split is warranted, so simply Keep. --doncram 01:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete How can this article be focussed when the very definition of large aircraft changes with time. The German Riesenflugzeuge were VERY LARGE aircraft of their day but struggle to be included in the FAA definition!!!! The criteria would have to be so fluid as to make a nonsense of the list.--Petebutt (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

:* Our article tells us that the Riesenflugzeuge had a gross weight of about 26,000 lb — more than double the FAA criterion. The example you provide therefore shows that this is not, in fact, a problem. That model is a good historical example of a large aircraft and so we will be providing excellent information to aviation enthusiasts and other readers by listing it as such. Andrew (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

:::The Riesenflugzeuge came and went long before the FAA cooked up their FAR definition for the purpose of regulating aircraft leasing. We have here two quite distinct uses of the phrase "large aircraft" and we should not muddle the two. (I can see no purpose in an article on either of them) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: As I've said elsewhere and policy says as well, clear criteria is need for lists. This list doesn't have clear criteria pbp 20:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, with consideration toward a potential merge to Large aircraft – Lists of largest aircraft. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• :You want to merge this much older article to that relatively new one? How so? Copy everything over to make that article's list section larger than the entire article? Or just replace this article with a redirect and nothing merged? Dream Focus 05:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - thanks to Dream we now have the option of clear quantitative criteria. While a possible merge is worth consideration, on balance it seems preferable to keep this as a separate article, as otherwise useful encyclopedia material could be lost. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• :What "clear qualitative criteria" are those? A definition cooked up by the American aircraft leasing insurance business and wholly inapplicable elsewhere? Arbitrary sources using the adjective "large" without regard to context? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:54, 16 May 2014 (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.