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. Courcelles 21:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aircrafts currently in production

[edit]

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

Article has no text explaining its scope and appears to be non-notable. For civil and military aircraft, the list is very incomplete. Info probably better covered at List of civil aircraft and/or List of aircraft. -fnlayson (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. - BilCat (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of civil aircrafts does not specify aircrafts still in production. -58snow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58snow (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per comments above. Also, article seems fairly similar to Competition between Airbus and Boeing, since Bombardier generally makes smaller civil aircraft than Boeing and Airbus. -fnlayson (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable list. If it is deemed that a list of aircraft currently in production is warranted this would be far better covered by adding text to List of aircraft, although this status does change from week to week. If this article is kept it needs to be moved as there is no such word as "Aircrafts" in the English language. The plural of "aircraft" is "aircraft", just like the plural of "moose" is "moose". - Ahunt (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Noting that a PROD tag was removed with no edit summary (assumed to mean contested). No idea what this article is supposed to be covering. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Rmosler | ● 21:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If they stop producing a plane it would have to be taken off the list. Jaque Hammer (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Re-Add Well of course old aircraft not in production would be taken off! I think that because it should be aircraft not "Aircrafts." it should be renamed. 58snow (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)</[reply]

What is the 're-add' option? I am guessing that English is not your first language, apologies if I am wrong. If you intend to create an article that lists all aircraft types that are currently in production then the list entry would run to a hundred or more at a wild guess. It would be virtually impossible to keep it accurate and up to date, we have enough problems in the aircraft project with trying to update the aircraft type articles already (mainly lack of reliable or timely information). Production status information is almost always provided at aircraft type articles, if a little out of date or inaccurate due to fast moving changes. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I always look for a positive solution at AfD we don't have a Category:Aircraft currently in production or similar to my knowledge. I think that would be useful. Begs the question do we need a Category:Aircraft not in production, probably not but we do have many defunct company categories. Just a thought. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a workable option. Another problem with this article, as noted, is its scope: It says "aircraft", but covers only airliners over 100 seats or so - there are many below that. So, do we need subcategories such as civil, military, airlienrs, etc, or is one basic categoy OK? Fibally, it's always a good idea for someone to get input form like-minded editors before creating a new article, especially for a new editor. WP:AIR is one such place,a dn we regularly discuss creating new article, if they are needed, or how else to apprach the need for that topic to be covered. AFDs are no fun to go through, eseciually if it's your first article, but discussion beforehand can help avoid that pain. - BilCat (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think subcategories would be a good idea. But how would someone go about changing the name of the article? Also are links to the company's websites valid for a citation? - 58snow (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 September 2010 (EST)

I like the "Category:Aircraft currently in production" suggestion also. I don't know of any way to rename the article to a category. -fnlayson (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) To create a category is the same as creating an article but it can be deleted in the same way, this article would not be renamed to a category, it would just be deleted. My suggestion should be taken to WT:AIR for discussion before implementing it as we have many, many categories already (but there is room for more), please do not create it without discussion. Links to company websites are valid and in most cases give the most up to date information (but not necessarily the most accurate or unbiased!!). See WP:RS, that might help. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would support creating a category in place of this list article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete provides no value as written, would be a very long and un-managable list with potentionaly hundreds of entries if populated. Support the idea of some sort of category but the details of that need to be discussed at the aircraft project not here. MilborneOne (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, support the category proposal as being discussed at WT:AIR. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article is a good idea. List of aircraft is very, very long and does not tell which aircraft are in production and which not. List of aircraft currently in production would be much shorter. Currently the content isn't good, but it can be improved and expanded. User:MilborneOne opposes keeping this because he thinks the article would become too long. Maybe it would, but that's a problem of the future and the article can then be splitted to something like List of passenger jets currently in production and List of turboprop passenger planes currently production. Also we can keep it shorter (if it's necessary, although I'm not convinved it would be) by not listing every variant of a plane type and instead just list the family, like Tu-204. Potential length is not really a reason to oppose the creation of this list. Offliner (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if for no other reason than the plural of Aircraft is Aircraft. An article like that would be almost impossible to keep up sensibly. Far better to take out a subscription to flight. Apart from that whetther an aircraft is in production or not is not relevent to an encyclopedia. Also the author is not very friendly as he hasn't even opened a user page!!!!!!!188.65.178.160 (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the policy that wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. This data is better suited split and placed into the articles about each company. It is more likely to be maintained there. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2010 (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.