Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maiden flight dates

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maiden flight dates

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

Duplicates information already in Year in aviation articles and if every maiden flight is included it could easily get to over 10,000 entries. The year in aviation articles have included this information by consensus for a long time and putting all the entries into one really huge list doesnt add any value to the encyclopedia, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, contested prod MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article assembles information in a convenient format. If the article becomes too large, then it can be split (WP:SPLIT), by century or by country or by another criterion.—Wavelength (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what the year in aviation articles already do. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For convenient reference, here is a link to Category:Aviation timelines.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not every item in "2000 in aviation" is a reference to a first occurrence, and presumably the other articles in Category:Aviation timelines are similar in that respect. Therefore, they are disqualified from being categorized in Category:Superlatives. In these respects, the article "Maiden flight dates" is distinct and merits retention.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Foo in aviation are not complete is not a reason to start a new article instead, not sure what superlatives has to do with the first flight of aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the year in aviation series (which constitutes a timeline) serves a different purpose than this article. Wikipedia does not require that information be displayed uniquely; although we try to avoid content forks, when there are different systematic means of conveying information, we will generally allow multiples to coexist (that's the principle behind WP:CLN). There's a partial list of these also present in maiden flight. I'd like to see the contents of that list merged here, and the resultant article renamed to list of maiden flights. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be both comprehensive and manageable, it is a case of "When" not "if" it gets too big. Probably needs a name change to "list of aircraft maiden flights" GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a very indiscriminate list and dupicates existing information in the "year in aviation" series, plus the individual aircraft types articles. If this were completed it would probably contain about 25,000 aircraft type first flight dates and would require splitting into dozens of sub-articles, making it even less useful than it currently is. - Ahunt (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MilborneOne and Ahunt. Either the list will be comprehensive (and I note that it already contains first flight dates for different models of the same aircraft type), or it will be selective. If it is comprehensive, then it will obviously be massive, such that the only sensible division will be by year - doing it by country makes no sense, doing it by century doesn't solve the problem, and doing it by decade will still result in massive lists. As has been already pointed out, we already have a home for this info by year. If it is selective, what are the exclusion or inclusion crieria; and what would the purpose be of having only a selective list? No-one has come up with an actual raison d'etre for having the list; what is the purpose of listing all aircraft types by their first flight date? If I want to know when was the first flight of the Boeing 247, I'd go to the article. YSSYguy (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate list, does not really define its inclusion criteria, large parts of the list are missing information. No context describing why this list should be encyclopedic or notable. JIP | Talk 06:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant list, subject is already covered in the "X year in aviation" articles (like 1995 in aviation or 1996 in aviation). Too indiscriminate for a stand-alone list.--xanchester (t) 12:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously incomplete, and it would be very large if it was. It would not be useful even if it was complete. JMcC (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2012 (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.