Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pusher aircraft by configuration

:{{la|List of pusher aircraft by configuration}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|List of pusher aircraft by configuration}})

Disputed prod. Original PROD rationale: "A list that is nicely done as the result of much effort on the creator's part, but has rather arbitrary inclusion criteria, nebulous subdivision criteria, and given the sheer size of the list were it to/when it include(s) all the aircraft of this configuration, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, while duplicating :Category:Pusher aircraft." An IP (presumably the logged-out author" replied on the talk page when removing the prod, to which Ahunt's reply there sums up my feelings on the article (and reasoning) nicely. To wit: List of some examples of post-1930 pusher aircraft by configuration, excluding ultralights and projects, which is what this list actually is, is redundant to Pusher configuration, and "If it is supposed to be a complete list then it duplicates the category and is WP:INDISCRIMINATE." Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep This not only duplicates the category, but it also groups the members and annotates them. As pusher aircraft covers everything from lightweight single seaters to the B36, then this is a useful addition to a bare category and justifies its existence on that basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I think the list is useful, for anyone but an expert on pusher aircraft, :Category:Pusher aircraft is just a meaningless collection of names. This list on the other hand breaks down the category into the characteristics of the aircraft, with enough information to distinguish the different articles, but not so much information that it starts to become an article itself. For someone trying to learn more about pusher aircraft, this list would be invaluable, and is thus good encyclopedic content. Monty₈₄₅ 21:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete There have been many pusher aircraft - the original list limited itself for unclear reasons to post 1930 and excluded ultralights - and if inclusive could prove impracticably unwieldy. The current :category:pusher aircraft is not fully populated. If configuration is a useful method for sorting pusher aircraft, this would be better done through categories. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Arbitrarily restricting the list to post-1930, non-ultralight and non-experimental aircraft probably excludes at least 3/4 of the pusher designs ever built, making the list of dubious use and non-representative of the category of aircraft. Including all pusher aircraft types would probably produce a list of some 5,000 aircraft types, if not more, which would also be of little value to a reader. While I think the idea of discussing the different pusher aircraft configurations is a good idea I believe it should be included in the Pusher configuration article, which is not currently over-long, and just cite one or two examples for each configuration, not a large number from an arbitrarily limited list. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

:: Arbitrary exclusions are indeed bad, but we don't have to do it that way. I think there's a scope (probably codified as "Anything with a pusher propeller, so long as someone bothers to write it") that makes for a useful list, yet there's no reason why we're forced to list all 5,000^{{{tl|citation needed}}} types. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

:::(My estimation is) about 300 aircraft are already listed under :category:pusher aircraft. Whether push-pulls are included or note in the list needs to be addressed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Experimental aircrafts are included; very interesting machines (Lear Fan, Vmax Probe for example). As yet done, some pushers examples are included in the Pusher configuration article. It is an arbitrary choice too... Plxd (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC) — Plxd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:*WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a valid argument to keep. Experimental types are in the category, which will act as a directory of types, while pusher configuration can cover the configurations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - re push-pulls. I can't off-hand think of any "pusher" push-pulls (no doubt someone will post one soon - Caproni Ca.1?). Those I can think of most easily are 1920s-1930s aircraft with the small engines of that period, where a broadly tractor aircraft had an additional pusher engine, in the same nacelle to reduce drag. I wouldn't list these under a list such as this. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete nothing special about the configuration of Pusher aircraft they are just one of a two main configurations for propulsion nothing that links the different types other than which way the propeller is bolted on which is not a defining-group for configuration, article is just really an indiscriminate list. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

::"Nothing that links the different types other than which way the propeller is bolted on" ?. Pusher prop and conventionnal layout means to address (1) the aft propeller/tail conflict; there are a lot of airframes configurations to cope with this problem (short fuselage with single upper or lower boom, twin booms - long fuselage with a drive shaft) and (2) the propeller ground clearance at takeoff (very high thrust line, ducted fan for smaller prop diameter, skid, ventral fin (cruciform tail, inverted V-tail, Y-tail)). That is a lot of pusher specific configurations.Plxd (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Comment nothing that can not be mention in Pusher aircraft, also note finding somewhere for a tractor propeller isnt easy either hence the number of variations that have been tried. MilborneOne (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Also note that many of those are not "specific" to pusher configurations; plus "analysing and comparing" the configuations in an article like this is very likely to founder on the grounds of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

:::: Articles may fail for BLP issues too, but that doesn't prevent us writing them, and dealing with issues if they actually happen. A threat that something "might" happen is no reason to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::Given that Pusher_aircraft#Advantages is uncited and Pusher_aircraft#Disadvantages has but four citations - I'd say there's already a risk of Synth. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::: So are we now discussing the deletion of pusher aircraft? Of course there is a risk of such things. We also have practices for what to do to resolve them. This doesn't need deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

::I understand we have to escape "analysing and comparing" the configurations, but only describe them. Is this an OR ? If necessary we can restrict this article to specific pusher configurations; it was in fact one among other rationales for the post 1930 initial selection.Plxd (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I think the list is useful and really interesting, !!!

Daytonarolexboston —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2011 (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.