Wikipedia talk:Notability (aircraft)

message: At first glance, it looks great! It covers a number of issues that have arisen recently in which guidleines are needed (I assume thei is no accident :) .) - BillCJ 01:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cursory comments

message: Related to list articles in the pop-culture spin-off page. THe deletionists are very agressive at stamping out any articel using the term "trivia" or "pop-culture" in the title or primary contnent, with a very knee-jerk reaction to the mere menitons of the word, no matter how well-sourced the page may be. Yet they have no problems with main articles that are full of the same cruft, notr fo they engage in efforts to clean those articels up. While I am no fan of cruft of anysort, there are legitimately notable items that should be included, and a large section should have the option of being split off without fear of deletions by over-eager, single-minded deletionsists. Having some guidelines for these types of articles would lend some weight to the fight in keeping the ones that need to be kept. Finally, some related typesshare a pop-culture page or ssection, such as the Air Force One in popular culture (four articles) which passed a "near-instant" AfD, and the Harrier Jump Jet#Popular culture section (also 4 articles.) - BillCJ 01:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this sort of page seems outside the scope of a notability guideline (but I'm very open to suggestions on precedents or wording). I'll admit that I haven't been paying close attention to these events, but if the same sort of thing is happening on a repeated basis, then it should probably form the basis for a RfC or some other wider community input. --Rlandmann 02:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The B-52 Stratofortress trivia page is currently up for AfD here. It's a good example of what I'm talking about, and the kind of repsonses such articles draw. (This one is actually pretty mild!) It'll give you an idea of why I'd like some sort of project-wide guidelines on these types of pages, if not here, then somewhere. - BillCJ 02:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop-culture articles

message: Well done, you have put in a lot of hard work on this guideline. I would like to think that most aircraft project members will buy in to it as it closely matches what we have been trying to do. Cannot find anything serious wrong with it at the moment. I think we do need to define notability concerning lists of survivors and the like <joke>before I complete my list of 24,000 Spitfires</joke> as they appear to be expanding into all survivors not just notable aircraft and those on public display.MilborneOne 11:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General comment

message: It might be worth just having a blanket statement that any fictional aircraft (e.g. F-19) should be judged according to the criteria for notability in fiction, not this list.Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - fictional aircraft were already declared to be outside the scope of this proposal (under coverage notes), but I've added a footnote along the lines you've suggested. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional Aircraft 

message: *Criterion 2. "The major subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network". I have seen TV documentaries on archaeological efforts to find and dig up specific aircraft that are otherwise non-notable. Perhaps the whole section could be qualified by adding the following bit in italics, "an individual aircraft is almost certainly not notable unless it has a non-trivial historical or technical significance which has been the subject of at least one of the following"? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that, in parallel with how notability is assessed for other topics on Wikipedia, if an individual airframe has had a half-hour documentary on a national network on an effort to dig it up; the documentary makes it notable. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One question I have about this: if an airplane is a major museum piece, does that make it notable?  For example, if a notable museum displays the aircraft (e.g. the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center has on display an F-14 Tomcat that was involved in the Gulf of Sidra incident), does this aircraft meet the notability guidelines for an article?  That plane doesn't have one now, but Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby seems, just looking at the current article, to be just another B-17 that's notable because of its museum showings.  SDY (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the guidelines stand now, just being a major museum piece wouldn't qualify an individual example of an aircraft as notable. There have been a separate articles for a few of these aircraft created over the years (World War II bombers are strongly over-represented, for some reason), but by-and-large, being such a display doesn't seem to have been widely considered by contributors as a reason for a stand-alone article, and this proposal reflects that position. I agree that neither the F-14 in question nor Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby would qualify under the guidelines; but then, most of our articles on aviation museums give details of aircraft in their collections, and we also have articles like Boeing B-17 Survivors that could absorb articles like Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby if anyone wanted to bite the bullet and do it. What do you think - bar too high? Too low? Broadly consistent with actual practice? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the WWII aircraft are the only current articles that would get caught up, and there are a fair number of them.  In the case of B-17's, it's probably too much for one article, though some of the more extensive ones are notable in their own right (q.v. Memphis Belle).  Many of these articles are well written and stable and have a lot of great pictures.  I don't see a reason to be aggressive about merging them.  Maybe include a caveat for restorations?  SDY (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, but the machines you're thinking of qualify as distinct types (albeit types for which only one example was built/designed). The individual aircraft section is intended to cover (for example) individual B-17s, Boeing 747s, or Cessna 172s. I might need to make that plainer. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Notability_%28aircraft%29#Individual_aircraft|Individual aircraft]]

message: Hi. To whoever is working on this page, I have a question. Should we moe this page to include all aviation related materialÉ I`m asking this because this AfD discussion involves an airport and possible other similar airports that also have no context except for an FAA identifier and links to the FAA, etc. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say no; there are really no criteria in common by which we could compare the notability of an aircraft with the notability of an airport. It may be worth approaching WikiProject Airports to see if someone there would be interested in developing a set of criteria. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'll go ask the people at Wikipedia:Notability_(Transportation), thanks anyways! Pie is good (Apple is the best) 13:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD discussion 

message: Wondering what people think of 
http://www.worldairforces.com/index.html
for inclusion in either Authoritative websites or Other useful websites.
...book sources are listed (though I don't have access to many of them to verify them), and it does include a lot of seemingly carefully researched info useful for ensuring the completeness of some of the lists. 
Care must be taken as he does include rumored or planned existence of some types that were not ultimately used (though it is usually clear as no numbers are included for these).NiD.29 (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it may be of help as a pointer to what was operated but I am not sure it is a reliable source itself. A quick look at some sections show errors and some dubious bits. It may be better to use some of the more reliable sources quoted directly. MilborneOne (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: It looks more like guidance so I propose removing the essay tag and placing the page in :Category:Wikipedia notability or :Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. DexDor (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this an essay or guidance ? 

message: I stumbled across an article up for deletion  involving an unmanned Chinese aircraft. I should have known better (knowing no Chinese and little about unmanned aircraft), but I tried to figure it out. That's when I ran across a list of over 1,500 articles: one for each aircraft listed at List of unmanned aerial vehicles of China. It's possible some would pass general notability guidelines, but based on a tiny sample I'm guessing that most would not. Knowing little about this area, I couldn't interpret the project page criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft). Can anyone here offer guidance? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of those bluelinks are actually links to a section of an article that covers many UAVs (e.g. SGCC UAV).  For info: many of these articles were created by one user ().  In most cases there's no pictures and no indication of how many of each type have been produced so it's hard to tell whether a particular type is just a university project made by combining existing COTS components. DexDor (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick response. I see what you mean about the many-links-to-one-article. Unless someone else brings some of them to Articles for Deletion, I'm inclined to ignore the whole thing, as just not worth the trouble to look into. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does every drone/unmanned aircraft ever made get its own article (1500 in China alone)? 

message: The section on Future aircraft states;
:Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball articles about aircraft that have not yet been built are generally discouraged unless reliable sources provide strong evidence that the project is likely to come to fruition, or it is a project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft.
The IML Addax is neither anticipated nor from an established design house. It is now [for deletion] and Project members are arguing that it has nevertheless received sufficient coverage to pass the WP:GNG policy on notability, for example it is described in Jane's and Flight.
Another type with a similar dubious status, also described in Jane's and Flight, is the Colani Cormoran. Some of his other aircraft projects received significant press coverage, including a propeller-driven supersonic design and a lifting-body airliner, but do not seem to have any mention either as an article or in his biography. They were pretty impossible designs, but the super-prop design at least  did receive significant coverage in RS; visitors will be coming here looking for information about it.
The plethora of flying car, roadable aircraft and pilotless VTOL air taxi projects currently receiving wide and sustained media attention provide another case in point. How do we decide which of these might be "likely to come to fruition"?
If there are no substantial objections, I intend to modify the section to read (new bits in bold);
:Projects and studies
:Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, articles about aircraft that have not yet been built are generally discouraged unless reliable sources provide strong evidence that the project is likely to come to fruition, is a significant project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft, or has otherwise received sufficient coverage to establish notability per WP:GNG.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, sorry for the delay in responding.  - NiD.29 (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, too. Sounds reasonable. - Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future aircraft - and past proposals