Wikipedia talk:Notability (aircraft)

Cursory comments

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)

List articles

One question: what about the infamous "list" articles that have becme prevalent of late? Some list survivor aircraft, some list variants, some try to list every individuial aircraft built of a given type or variant (some of whioch number in the hundreds), while others list operators and/or bases, etc. - BillCJ 01:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hundreds... thousands... or tens of thousands. I know, I know.

I've deliberately avoided addressing lists, since no other notability guideline does, other than the one related directly to lists: (Wikipedia:List guideline). Furthermore, there are two other guidelines currently in development that will address this issue more specifically: Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia ("developed in response to concerns that such lists are sometimes used as subterfuges to bypass the Wikipedia content policies of No original research, Neutral point of view, Verifiability or What Wikipedia is not.") and the more agressive Wikipedia:Listcruft.

For now, these can be taken to AfD on a case-by-case basis. The serial number lists in particular would stand very little chance of survival there. --Rlandmann 02:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Pop-culture articles

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)

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)

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)

• There are some items that are worth keeping in a Trivia section but they don't really fit in the main article. I was going to say something about the wording on Trivia tag, but it got toned down a bit. Well anyway.. -Fnlayson 03:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Criteria: "Types"

I have to question this one:

5. The aircraft has received a distinct model number from a builder or manufacturer of other notable aircraft. (eg: since Blériot built other notable types, the Blériot X is notable, even if this particular aircraft was not completed or flown.)

This seems like a grandfather clause thing. I think an aircraft was never produced and not notable otherwise, should mentioned in another article if at all possible. -Fnlayson 03:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole proposed guideline is all a grandfather clause, in the sense that it's intended to reflect what WikiProject:Aircraft has been doing all these years; and there's plenty of unfinished and unflown aircraft projects and designs that we've documented.

The choice of the Blériot X was quite specific because (apart from obviously being fresh in my mind), this one was actually built (if not completed, but that's more than can be said for the Ta 183 and most other "Luft '46" designs), exhibited at a major aeronautics expo, we have reliable specifications for it, and there are even photos extant (none that can be confidently asserted to be public domain, unfortunately). It was also a unique, stand-alone design by Blériot and therefore not easily merged with another aircraft (that perhaps did fly).

Nevertheless, I take the point, and will clarify both this criterion and its predecessor in the next revision. --Rlandmann 04:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• That'll be fine I'm sure. Thanks. -Fnlayson 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The intention in both criteria 4 and 5 was to distinguish between an unfinished or abandoned project by Louis Blériot, Focke-Wulf, or Grumman (most of which most of us would regard as notable) and an unfinished "experimental aircraft" in the carport of Fred Smith down the road (which hopefully none of us would!) --Rlandmann 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In general this proposal looks good. I did a fairly careful read of it with an eye to comparing the criteria to some obscure aircraft types I have been writing articles on recently, such as Schweizer cargo glider designs (which I think would survive under these guidelines). I think that what you have written here puts "the line" in the right place, although there may need some tweaking in the future. - Ahunt (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, eventually, if more details were to come to light, it would be nice to de-lump the unrelated designs covered in that article! I think these guidelines would support that, too. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Schweizer cargo glider designs article is probably a good "marginal case study" for this proposal. In trying to complete articles on all the Schweizer gliders, I had hoped to be able to do even short articles on each of the four designs bundled together there, but sufficient info was just not available, even in Paul Schweizer's book for the Smithsonian. I think that to come up with more on those designs you would probably have to go through the Smithsonian's archives and find the original drawings submitted to the USAAF spec, I just don't think there are any other records. (...and that would be pretty much WP:OR!!) I think that the story of these four designs is actually interesting in its own right and is worth telling in Wikipedia. Also, in this particular case, these rejected designs, done to fulfill a poorly thought-out USAAF specification, greatly impacted the later and successful CG-4 and also lead Schweizer Aircraft to become what they eventually were famous for - subcontracting. In my own opinion, we want to make sure that the criteria we agree on here allows for this kind of aeronautical history to be told on Wikipedia, even though there are editors who have expressed a desire to remove all history from aircraft articles. (qv UH-1 Iroquois former operators) - Ahunt (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the "behind-the-scenes" :) And yes - a good marginal case study. I might even see if I can work it in somewhere. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to do so - it must be a good example of something! If nothing else I am hoping a little publicity for that rather obscure article might attract someone with some even more obscure refs who could add something more to it! - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

General comment

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)

Threshold Standards

I think that using whether or not full specifications are available as a possible threshold standard as to whether an article is notable could discriminate unduly against older aircraft (and particularly non-fashionable types) where full specifications may not be available even for aircraft built in significant numbers or used by commercial or military operators. It may also be open to abuse for editors trying to make a point, as some may try to insist that all of the fields of the specification templates are filled in - try finding the never exceed speed of a Sopwith Camel for example! Nigel Ish 21:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur. The Sikorsky X2 has very few specs, as details on it have not been released, but the aircraft is still notable, and is due to fly this year. - BillCJ 00:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why I included a footnote about taking care when applying this threshold to older aircraft or other aircraft that may have problems with systemic bias. By the latter, I mean specifically that I think everyone here knows that it's going to be much easier to find specs for a U.S.- or Western-European aircraft than one from South America or Asia (except wartime Japan); and in most cases, specs for military aircraft are easier to find than civil types.

It's also why I included terms like "Usually... most of its specifications" and "few (if any)" specifications.

What the threshold was intended to pose a barrier to was aircraft like the Berger BX-50 helicopter that I've currently got on the research back-burner. I know that it existed, I know who built it, and where, and approximately when, and even what type of engine it used. At the moment, though, that's about it, and I don't feel that that's enough to include in even a stub at this stage. There are dozens of obscure U.S. types listed over at aerofiles in similar positions. If we're going to say that prima facie every "type" is notable, we should also establish some pragmatic guidelines about under what circumstances they might not be notable.

Maybe that's a good question to throw open to the floor? Along, with, of course, any advice about how the threshold could be worded to avoid abuse by deletionists or those with axes to grind? --Rlandmann 01:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As a recent axe grindee, your reasoning make perfect sense :) As you point out, these guidelines need to be worded so as to prevent abuse, while allowing reasoanble editors to add aircraft that don't quite fit the rules. The spirit of the rules is as important as the letter. And you've definitely got the spirit down right! - BillCJ 01:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Aircraft

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)

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)

Airships, Balloons, Kites

It's bound to come up... We have Balloon, Toy balloon, Weather balloon, Observation balloon, Balloon (aircraft) and other articles that have individually established notability. Many such are completely devoid of type certificates etc, yet have broad types. e.g. The toy balloon comes predominantly in latex and mylar types, further subdivided by colouration, marking, fill gas, etc. Kitoons, balloons and tethered blimps (such as are commonly used for advertising, location markers, or radio antennas) can similarly be categorized and typed. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (toys and games) should cover some of these. You could also argue that some spacecraft are also aircraft, as the line gets very blurry with things like the space shuttle and the X-15. I think the policy as written could reasonably cover any kind of balloon designed to carry humans. They may not have type certificates, but a lot of reasonably notable aircraft designs don't either. The "commercial sale" criterion would be the most often one invoked to justify most of those, or a distinct type as distinguished by a notable source appropriate to the type of aircraft such as a notable ballooning association. Military and government projects tend to have numbers or names assigned, though sometimes they're handled as ships instead of aircraft (i.e. USS Akron). If the policy is really inappropriate for some of these borderline topics, WP:IAR can always be invoked. Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The recent changes seem to address them by explicitly not addressing them. Works for me. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't have time yesterday to add a note here about the changes. Types of balloons and airships have always been covered (since they fly by aerostatic lift), but models and toys have always explicitly not been covered. The clarification I added was that these guidelines are not intended to address articles about categories of aircraft, only types, subtypes, and individual aircraft. Therefore, a general article on blimps is outside its scope, but an article on a type of blimp (eg C class blimp) is covered. I added an extra criterion for identifying a notable type (treatment as such for the purposes of civil registration), with a specific example of a passenger-carrying hot air balloon. A specific design of weather balloon (eg Kaymont KCI, NovaLynx Group 400, Totex TA) would similarly be covered if (as Somedumbyankee points out) it is treated as a distinct type by secondary sources or is offered for commercial sale as such.

Winged spacecraft and missiles are eligible to be assessed under this guideline (since they fly through aerodynamic lift), but of course could also be judged against any other appropriate notability guidelines if and when they become available. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. I had seen your edits already when I posted yesterday. I have no issue with the choices, I just wanted to ensure it had been thought about. Thank you.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If no objections

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am closing this discussion per a request on WT:N. Currently there is insufficient consensus to elevate this proposal to guideline status, and discussion on the matter appears to have gone stale. Future discussion on this matter should be initiated in a new section and should seek the consensus of a broader community. Shereth 16:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Since this guideline has been quiet for about a month now and appears to have broad support, is there any objection to marking it as a finalized guideline instead of a proposed one? Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it's pretty good. Congratulations. I have not read it before (nibbling round the edges of the wikiproject, as I cannot afford the time to get properly involved), but have made a few suggestions below. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind words. It's really important to get feedback and to work out where the bugs are and where there's room for clarification and improvement. Any effort like this is only ever at attempt to codify what has evolved naturally here over the years - sometimes it's tricky to get the barriers just right! --Rlandmann (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Individual aircraft

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Criterion 3. "The subject of multiple, non-trivial published works...." Some historically or technically important designs have never been written up properly (e.g. according to Criteria 1 to 3), often through lack of surviving examples or documentation. Information available can be so scrappy that only a single reputable published reference exists. I cannot remember the names of any examples, although I mention a couple on the Wing configuration article (one ca. 1910-20 had a flat annular wing, another ca. 1944 had extending wings). Where the designer or manufacturer is otherwise not notable, these guidelines seem to leave no place for such designs. Perhaps the "multiple" source requirement could be watered down to say, "one or more"? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Future aircraft

I think there is a loophole for trivia where notable designers have produced a great many formally designated studies, but few ever progressed beyond the drawing board. Perhaps significance should be required, as in "... or it is a historically or technically significant project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft"? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rlandmann is the father of this document, and he's definitely the one who gets the credit. Some thoughts:

• Aircraft like Glacier Girl or Shoo Shoo Baby aren't technically significant (maybe the restoration efforts are?), and historical significance is a very hard criterion to objectively describe. If historians have been interested enough in it to support a documentary about it, does that mean it's historically significant? Enola Gay could be argued to be marginally significant (a la WP:BLP1E). A relatively broad criterion here seems fine, since it's mostly just there to weed out "Dave's really cool airplane and banner flying service."

• I would generally think that articles which exist in only one source are of marginal notability unless the source is extremely authoritative. At any rate, I doubt that there are a substantial number of pages that meet this problem, so WP:IAR or just a merge into the article about whatever makes it technically significant. For example, the Heinkel Lerche could be incorporated into Coleopter or Annular wing.

• I agree with the comment about irrelevant designs that either have not been built or were never built. I don't think every aircraft ever proposed by Boeing is significant. Things like the Model 299, which are evolutionary steps or improvements on more notable aircraft, can (and have been) incorporated into the main articles.

Thanks for the comments. Just trying to grease the wheels of this proposal a bit, since it's being mentioned quite a bit on WT:AIR and I think it would help to have a solid guideline. SDY (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

AfD discussion

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)

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)

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)

sources

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)

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)

Is this an essay or guidance ?

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)

Does every drone/unmanned aircraft ever made get its own article (1500 in China alone)?

I stumbled across an article up for deletion [1] 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)

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 ([2]). 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)

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)

Future aircraft - and past proposals

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)

Sounds good, sorry for the delay in responding. - NiD.29 (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, too. Sounds reasonable. - Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)