1574:- As stated by Rlandmann, most of the entries are not notable on their own, or are not cited from reliable sources. Each article should be pruned of those entries. If the list notable remaining items is too long to be merged back in to the main aircraft articles, then the survivors page should be kept, provided the article format is updated to current WP and WP:AIR policies and guidelines, including titles and captions. In order to do this right, it is neccessarry to consider each article separately. That should probably be done in separate AFDs for each article, in order to have the force of consenus behind the decisions taken, given that the creator of most of these articles has strong ownership issues. Finally, there are wiki-style websites that can host these articles in their entirety, with very little change to the articles required, so that the creator's hours of hard work will not be "destroyed". -
1953:- I quit, tired of all this fighting and other nonsense - I have wasted too many long hours fighting about minor garbage issues (like what goes into captions, should the cpations be centered, is a list of survivors acceptable in wikipedia, what is notable, what deserves to be linked, length of article naming articles and now mass deletions by a music critic). I really wish I had never heard of wikipedia and I wish I had never started investing my time and efforts bringing a passion and deep interest to wikipedia. Over the past 18 months I have fought tooth and nail to get my ideas across only to have constant bickering thrown my way.
1258:- Merge to a section (with summary) within each main aircraft type article page. Give any survivors that are independently notable their own page and link them from these sections. Categorise individual articles in a main category, and create subcategories for proper grouping (probably some of this already exists). Articles of this nature aren't particularly encyclopaedic, and it will be difficult to establish notability for articles of these titles - remember that the reliable sources have to refer to the article subject. The articles as they are are pretty much indiscriminate collections of information, by the way.
1765:? Quite clearly a strawman. Unless he has some expert knowledge to confer about medieval swords such as there are currently 1 million still in existence despite being made in medieval times, then I would have zero problem making the same claim for swords either. It seems at face value a perfectly fine example of something that would be automatically worthy of note after a certain point in time. And if there are so many left it would pointless to note them, then what point was he trying to make? Clearly in that case, they would not be considered 'rare'.
1385:(as defined by policy) surely is, which is why I asked on what grounds you're asserting that most of the airframes on these lists are notable. "Importance" is a criterion for exclusion, but only insofar as it can be measured by "notability"; the presumption is that if a subject is notable (therefore important), there will be independent secondary sources that give a treatment of it beyond simply noting its existence. I don't think that's the case with most of the airframes listed in these articles, but would be very happy to be proven wrong.
645:. The claim about the lists being potentially very long is wrong. The survivors are notable because comparatively few have survived, and those that survived have had considerable time and money invested in their restoration – which in turn often leads to the soft of coverage in reliable sources that would pass the general notability guideline. The survivors are historical artefacts and the subject of considerable fascination by many people. In the same way that some people enjoy collecting guns, others enjoy collecting military aircraft. --
1476:
should do it himself first, perhaps at WP:AVIATION, then if he gets anywhere, he can bring any articles he thinks still fail that established consensus to Afd. If he doesnt get anywhere, then he can nominate articles individualy at will. But trying to determine the consensus on the issue by raising individual Afd's first is just a waste of effort, likely only to result in reactionary keeps, but this is sadly too often typical of the way wikipedia tries to treat such issues.
1279:- actually, that's where most of these came from; a section in the article on the aircraft type in question. Once they started to be expanded to include any and every surviving airframe, they were (mercifully!) broken out into separate articles. If these are to be merged back whence there came, there needs to be some discussion about how many and/or which "survivors" are notable enough to mention in the main article on (say) the B-17 (which is very long as it is!) --
1498:
tech-savvy educated white
American males get deleted far too often on Knowledge (XXG): editors confuse "I don't like it" or "it's stupid because it isn't part of my eminently superior world" with "it's not notable". This may be one of the few times that something more popular with white American males than with other groups who are considered less notable is deleted, but deletion would still not be in accordance guidelines or policy. --
1214:, a specialist site devoted to documenting this type of artifact. I don't know that Knowledge (XXG) needs to duplicate this. This is exactly the sort of material that we have External Links for - "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy" (
1154:. As more modern aircraft I'm more concerned about finding individual notable examples. Fewer are likely to have a notable service career and even if still flying they're less likely to have recieved significant coverage as IMO there's less interest in aircraft of this age. If such coverage can be found for a signifcant number of survivors then they should be kept for the above rationalle but I'm not sure it will be.
1148:. As notable WW2 aircraft I'm sure some of the surivors will be notable enough for their own write up, similar to B-17 and B-29, either due to the notability of their service career or due to being a still flying example as these will often get coverage from air shows etc. As articles that are likely to reach the standard of the first two with a little bit of time and effort I think they should probably be kept.
1142:. Both of these articles list notable survivors which have their own wikipedia entry. A list of these survivors plus those other survivors which, while notable, may not be worthy of their own page is IMO definitely worth keeping. In this context I have no problem with a list of 'other (not notable) survivors' although I think the lists could be better formatted.
1830:
often two sides to an arguement) I just wonder why a person who has only created articles on
Canadian films and Canadian Hockey is interested in deleting 15 stronge articles about aviation. I agree that some of the articles need work, but I am only one editor who has limited amout of time each to work on these articles - again thanks to all for you support
2133:- as the preservation of airframes is an exercise in preserving history, the historic assets are inherently notable, and thus inherently encyclopedic. (And yes, I would think that a list of historic, surviving notable swords in museums around the world would be encyclopedic, as well.) (Oh, and I, for one,
2213:
I mean give me a break - no photographs, very little reference material, most of this information is lifted right off the official NFL web page (which is updated everyday during the season), definitly not notible, not historic, not encyclopedic, except for some hocky fans these pages are useless - if
2050:
I would like to reconsider deleting these articles, with a strong recommendation to restructure them, particularly to de-emphasize the non-notable airframes. The following: "B-17G-95DL c/n 32359 44-83718, Converted: B-17H, redesignated: SB-17G, ex-Brazilian AF (5408), ex-6th Grupo de Aviaçao (SAR), "
1992:
appropriate articles. Encyclopedic topics, well done lists. (Actually, I think there are so few surviving early 11th c. swords that a list of them might be appropriate also, though not at article of every individual one. Though--even so-- for those in good museums, there will be published sources for
1640:
is "entirely non-notable" based purely on the fact that the original aircraft might have been common, is patent nonsense. That is true for standalone lists and lists in articles. "Rare" - (read historic) aircraft, after a certain age, are inherently notable, no matter what the original production run
1293:
I'm sure people can sum things up in a couple of paragraphs, link independently notable examples, and maybe quickly point out that there are thirty or forty (or however-many) partial or complete airframes scattered around the country. All it needs is a couple of people to keep an eye on the articles.
1209:
However, I'm not really convinced about the notability of even many of the preserved B-17s and B-29s (even some of those with their own articles). Just being a museum exhibit doesn't indicate notability, and detailed treatment of these as individual airframes (rather than as examples of a type) seems
1497:
for all. These are all verifiable to multiple independent reliable sources. It doesn't matter if ANYTHING is rare or fascinating or not rare or not fascinating: multiple notices by reliable independent sources is the guideline's definition of "notable". This is how articles on items not popular with
1076:
There may have been thousands of them at one time - but those numbers are now finite. There are but ~45 B-17s intact out of 12K plus. Of 18K B-24s, even fewer survived. I believe the number of B-25s is around 80. About the only "warbirds" that keep increasing in number are P-51s and
Spitfires. And
1365:
In your opinion, that is, it is irrelevant. Many of these aircraft have been been meticulously restored and are displayed in museums. This is important information to aviation and military enthusiasts, just as much as lists of tall buildings are to architecture buffs and lists of paintings are to
1829:
I think from the overwhelming majority of the people voting to keep the
Survivors seriers I think the nomination for deletion can be quickly removed from all of these articles - I wish to thank all those editors for their fine comments (even those editors which I often disagree with - but these is
1475:
The basic premise was false as this Afd result is likely to show. Rewarding that error with a consolation prize of potentially deleting some articles would be wrong. If the nominator wants to try to establish notability guidelines under which the creation of these types of lists should operate, he
1388:
The comparison you make to buildings or paintings is a little bit off-target; buildings and paintings are (generally) one-of-a-kind objects; these are all surviving examples of aircraft were mass-produced and of a type that is already treated in-depth in an article of its own. However, even when a
876:
I didn't fail anything. The importance of the aircraft is reflected in their standard articles, and the fact that they are notable by themselves isn't at issue, as each has an article. Reading the primary articles will also make it clear. The only issue at hand is if an article listing the
769:
No, it really isn't. You are talking about "verifiability". Paris
Hilston's fashion is well-documented by reliable sources, but I wouldn't call her wardrobe or her new haircut notable. Certain extinct species that have only one or two fossils remaining, with very little else known, are very
1135:
In my opinion this needs to be split into seperate AfDs, possibly even one for article. Personally I group them into four groups and my opinion differs on each group. If other people's opinion varies depending on article then a single AfD isn't really suitable. My views are as follows:
834:
You have failed to address the central issue: the articles do not assert notability, and the best we can likely do is come up with a borderline claim to notability for this. All we have now is "there are fewer of these than there used to be". The same is true for believers in
1746:
What does anyone being an expert in anything have to deal with this? It was addressing the logic of your 'inherent notability' claim: ""Rare" - (read historic) aircraft, after a certain age, are inherently notable, no matter what the original production run size."
1235:. Fair point. I probably should have said that the above was more my first feelings than an in depth analysis and that I was using it to show why I wasn't happy with this being dealt with as one AfD rather than it being my final opinion (hence the lack of bold).
612:) individual aircraft built. Indeed these lists thus have potential to be thousands of items long! The articles also fail to establish why the surviving ones are notable. Perhaps if only a few models had been manufactured, a list such as these would be viable. —
810:
per the above. A list of surviving 737s would be useless since there are so many of them, but many not in 100 years. As long as we are talking about older aircraft like this, the articles make perfect sense and seem to be exactly what
Knowledge (XXG) is for.
877:
existing ones is noteworthy, which they are because of the age and limited numbers left, per my previous statement. Most other editors already "got this" without me having to spell this out. Didn't realize some you wouldn't. My comment and !vote stands.
1004:
No one has attacked you, but not everyone appreciates having their opinions (which were not directed to you personally) picked apart. Not everyone needs to be told why their opinion is "wrong". And sometimes, you don't have to have the last word.
964:
I am responding to everyone whose arguments I disagree with. It is important that all concerns are addressed, both mine and theirs. Theirs I address, but, for the most part, my concern of notability has not been addressed. I haven't attacked anyone
1907:
I'm generally impressed with these articles; a lot of work has been put into many of them, including pictures and plenty of information for each aircraft. I don't really see how having these articles is detrimental to wikipedia in any
1380:
Sorry - that was a poor choice of words on my part - allow me to clarify. "Rare" is irrelevant to deciding whether
Knowledge (XXG) should keep this article or not; it's just not a criterion for inclusion. On the other hand,
1180:
Well, actually only the H-models are still in use. All other variants are retired, and because of treaties, the early birds that were NOT preserved have been scrapped. Therefore, the surviving A-G models are notable, IMHO.
1783:
medieval swords (nor all things old&rare) are inherently notable. "This sword was made in 1033. It was never used in battle, and was found in an armory in 1949. It is now housed at the
British Museum of History." —
2051:
8 ", Museu
Aerospacial, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (R)" means very little, especially when repeated for 30+ airframes, without any prose. I would be glad to help in discussing alternative ways to present these articles. —
1665:
The second part of my argument was "The articles also fail to establish why the surviving ones are notable." How about a "list of medieval swords"? These things are old and there are less now than there used to be. —
1695:
Do you even have a clue as to whether this strawman you serve up is even a remotely similar comparison? I have no clue as to how many medieval swords there are that still exist, or what is known about them. Heck, a
1077:
for all the 737s built, their day will come,too, although I don't recommend trying to list them while they are still in production and service. I would certainly say that surviving
Constellations are notable. IMHO.
1048:
in nature. Most articles on aircraft types contain a mention of notable preserved airframes, but I think that detailed lists of each and every surviving example of a type, the compilation of which borders on
2167:
likes to talk about useless articles and lack ot notibility I think he might have a point - I recommend someone nominate the following articles for deletions (since I do not want to considered a vandal):
1456:
such a split. And if split, maybe the nom would consider not relisting them all simultaneously, but maybe deal with them one at a time, beginning with what they feel to be the least notable example? --
697:. These aircraft are notable because there are so few of them remaining of many that were manufactured. The survivors are all pretty much well documented in third party publications and thus meet
1392:
PS: I would consider myself an "aviation enthusiast", and while I agree with you that this information is important and fascinating, I'm just not convinced that it fits within the scope of an
2011:
In a general term, I've found articles like this unexpectedly useful - I used the survivors list for the Me109 to track down the specific details of the subject of a photograph that was on
1538:
source. You should discuss the matter at hand; it is unfair and irrelevant to attack what you perceive as my hidden agenda. (Also, I am not a "tech-savvy educated white American male".) —
1333:
Most of these aircraft are rare and/or notable examples. Even the B-52, where all of the 744 A-H models were built and the only still serving aircraft are fewer than 100 H models. --
132:
1044:. Yes, it's interesting (to those of us who love these machines) and a lot of love and care has been put into these articles, but at the end of the day, this material simply isn't
1927:. Can't see a single reason for even considering deletion. The topics are encyclopedic, the material is verifiable and well presented, there's too much of it to consider a merge.
1520:"multiple notices by reliable independent sources" for any but a few entries on these lists. By-and-large, these are lists pieced together from various self-published websites. --
1206:- I also think that breaking this up into individual AfDs is a good idea, since I think you're right about there being different degrees of notability implicit in these articles.
1617:
The nomination's point about the size of the original production runs seems irrelevant. These survivors are notable by virtue of this status and articles about them seem fine.
1593:
529:
524:
533:
1294:
There's no way these articles can stand as they are - it looks clumsy and the articles are more the kind of data you would expect in a database than an encyclopedia.
659:"Fascinating" and "notable" are not the same thing. Any relevant information pertaining to restoration and amateur hobbyists belongs in the main article; or, perhaps
345:
340:
299:
294:
1443:
It's perfectly acceptable to split it, or to keep them as is. One option would be to sort them by importance, then decide where the cut-off should be. Regards,
516:
349:
303:
2204:
332:
286:
575:
570:
483:
478:
579:
487:
437:
432:
391:
386:
1422:
1421:
Can editors comment on whether this should be split up into 11 separate AfDs? An admin could do that if there is general support. (This was asked at
441:
395:
253:
248:
207:
202:
161:
156:
99:
94:
562:
470:
257:
211:
165:
103:
424:
378:
240:
194:
148:
86:
52:. Apologies to anyone who thinks this is a coi since I voiced a comment in the discussion...this seems rather a foregone conclusion, though.
1956:
Rlandmann Please, Just delete all my work and let my ideas die peacefully - my words have bled enough - just put them out of there misery
1976:
520:
1636:
Without commenting on the current state of particular lists with regard to size, content or sources, the assertion that the topic of
17:
900:
The aircraft model is notable, yes. But the individuals listed here are not notable, and the ones that are should be in a category
2250:
336:
290:
1308:"more the kind of data you would expect in a database than an encyclopedia" - I think that hits the nail exactly on the head. --
1641:
size. You can debate the inclusion criteria or sourceing requirements for each particular model, or even create a guideline at
2288:
2268:
2066:
1865:
1799:
1681:
1553:
1114:
988:
919:
862:
785:
734:
678:
627:
1534:
I didn't say anything about not liking aircraft, mainly because I do like them. As Rlandmann says, only a few of these have
512:
2214:
they are not a canidate for deletions then maybe someone can restructure them and get rid of all the useless infomation.
566:
474:
2314:
36:
1697:
605:
428:
382:
328:
282:
901:
2034:, this article is one of the most valuable on the entire site. There is really no reason to delete pages like this.
2272:
2199:
2174:
2070:
1869:
1803:
1685:
1557:
1389:
famous artist has produced multiple prints of a work, we don't include lists of each and every one of those prints.
1118:
992:
923:
866:
789:
738:
682:
631:
244:
198:
152:
90:
716:
2189:
2300:
2277:
2232:
2154:
2119:
2093:
2075:
2043:
2024:
2004:
1980:
1965:
1936:
1917:
1897:
1874:
1839:
1808:
1774:
1756:
1741:
1727:
1709:
1690:
1658:
1626:
1608:
1583:
1562:
1529:
1507:
1485:
1465:
1447:
1434:
1405:
1375:
1360:
1342:
1317:
1303:
1288:
1267:
1244:
1227:
1198:
1175:
1123:
1094:
1066:
1023:
997:
959:
928:
895:
871:
829:
794:
764:
743:
710:
687:
654:
636:
65:
2313:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1622:
660:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1970:
Declined; Other editors have added material to the articles, so an author requested deletion is not possible.
1762:
2253:
to rename these articles, and have been all through this AfD? Please take your bitterness somewhere else. —
1194:
1186:
1090:
1082:
609:
558:
466:
1382:
698:
1752:
1723:
1604:
1299:
1263:
969:
and, in fact, I think I'm keeping a pretty cool head considering I have been attacked personally at least
420:
374:
2184:
2179:
938:
236:
190:
144:
82:
2081:
1642:
1351:"Rare" is irrelevant here. What makes you say that most of the airframes on these lists are notable? --
1054:
604:
These articles seem entirely non-notable. Most of these aircraft had hundred or thousands (e.g. 18,482
2089:
1770:
1737:
1705:
1654:
1481:
1444:
1430:
2152:
2115:
2015:
a couple of weeks back. The topic certainly seems of practical, if esoteric, interest and utility.
1893:
1618:
1525:
1503:
1461:
1401:
1356:
1313:
1284:
1223:
1062:
760:
63:
2264:
2164:
2062:
2020:
1861:
1795:
1677:
1549:
1190:
1182:
1110:
1099:
Are you suggesting that these aircraft are notable entirely due to their present-day scarcity? —
1086:
1078:
1015:
984:
951:
915:
887:
858:
821:
781:
730:
674:
650:
623:
2223:
In fact I think these article might be a strong canidite to merge back into the main articles.
2228:
1971:
1961:
1932:
1835:
1748:
1719:
1600:
1295:
1259:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1700:
might even educate me a tiny little bit. But can we please stick to discussing this article?
1646:
1210:
to be lacking in secondary sources. Some of these articles are little more than pastiches of
49:
2039:
1579:
1371:
1338:
2107:
2012:
2296:
2085:
1913:
1766:
1733:
1701:
1650:
1645:, but the deletion rationale as presented can only be dealt with by a heavy blow from the
1477:
1426:
1240:
1171:
706:
1215:
1050:
2110:, and you're very welcome to participate in such a discussion. Outside eyes are good! --
2143:
2111:
1889:
1521:
1499:
1457:
1397:
1352:
1309:
1280:
1219:
1058:
756:
54:
1850:
to throw out there. I have only edited Canadian music and Canadian hockey articles? —
2254:
2052:
2016:
2000:
1851:
1785:
1667:
1539:
1100:
1006:
974:
942:
905:
878:
848:
812:
771:
720:
664:
646:
613:
2224:
2194:
2138:
1957:
1928:
1831:
1160:. As an aircraft that's still in service I don't see how 'survivors' are notable.
596:
550:
504:
458:
412:
366:
320:
274:
228:
182:
120:
2035:
1575:
1367:
1334:
2292:
1909:
1846:
1236:
1167:
702:
715:
Being well-documented doesn't mean the thing is notable, it just means it is
1995:
1715:
2141:'s really hard, dedicated work to make this a better encyclopedia.)
2249:
you posted this? Did you not notice that I am also taking part in
1396:(as opposed to a specialist monograph or website or database). --
1211:
2307:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1761:
What analogy am I supposed to be drawing here? That there is no
48:
based on two things: 1) nominator has withdrawn the nom, and 2)
836:
701:
criteria. Most are museum or similar preserved aircraft. -
1732:
So you're saying he is an expert in medieval swords then.
937:
opinion, which many others disagree with. You can stop
2246:
592:
588:
584:
546:
542:
538:
500:
496:
492:
454:
450:
446:
408:
404:
400:
362:
358:
354:
316:
312:
308:
270:
266:
262:
224:
220:
216:
178:
174:
170:
127:
116:
112:
108:
1718:
to me. It seems more like a relatively valid analogy.
1516:See, that's the problem right there - there simply
941:everyone else for having a different opinion now.
139:I am also nominating the following related pages:
843:Ra believers, we would only create a list of the
751:Being well-documented in reliable sources is the
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2317:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1057:for aircraft any more than it is for people. --
2205:Player salaries in the National Hockey League
1594:list of Military-related deletion discussions
1189:) 15:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Mark Sublette
8:
1085:) 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Mark Sublette
770:under-documented, but certainly notable. —
1146:B-24, A-20, P-38, B-25 and P-47: Weak Keep
1592:: This debate has been included in the
2080:Good man. I suggest you wander over to
1572:Prune/Merge on individual article basis
2106:Actually, the relevant WikiProject is
1053:, are beyond Knowledge (XXG)'s scope.
973:three times during this discussion. —
1256:Merge and/or create separate articles
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1714:It doesn't look like too much of a
839:, but we wouldn't create a list of
76:
2289:Knowledge (XXG):Other stuff exists
24:
1055:Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial
1698:List of surviving medival swords
1423:the Administrators' Noticeboard
902:Category:Surviving Boeing B-17s
2301:17:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
2278:22:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
2233:16:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
2155:15:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
2120:20:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
2094:12:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
2076:08:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
2044:22:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
2025:20:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
2005:19:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
1981:17:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
1966:16:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
1937:15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
1918:03:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
1898:13:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1875:15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1840:13:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1809:04:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
1775:03:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
1757:03:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
1742:03:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
1728:03:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
1710:01:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
1691:15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1659:11:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1627:10:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1609:10:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1584:07:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1563:15:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1530:06:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1508:05:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1486:11:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1466:04:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1448:04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1435:03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1406:03:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1376:03:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1361:01:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1343:01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1318:02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1304:02:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1289:01:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1268:01:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1245:00:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1199:15:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1024:20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
998:20:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
960:19:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
929:15:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
896:10:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
795:15:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
765:05:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
66:00:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
1888:as per Colonel Warden, etc.
1228:23:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1176:23:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1124:22:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1095:22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1067:21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
872:22:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
830:21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
744:22:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
711:20:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
688:20:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
655:20:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
637:19:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
513:North American B-25 survivors
329:Consolidated B-24 survivors
283:Chance-Vought F4U survivors
44:The result was Result is
2334:
2247:I wrote not 8 hours before
2200:Colorado Avalanche records
2175:New York Islanders records
1638:list of surviving aircraft
1140:B-17 and B-29: Strong Keep
699:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
2190:Atlanta Thrashers records
2084:and suggest a guideline.
661:Legacy of the Boeing B-17
2310:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
2251:the ongoing discussions
1763:List of medieval swords
1495:Strongest Possible Keep
559:Republic P-47 survivors
467:Lockheed P-38 survivors
1993:each individual one. )
1779:The point is that not
421:Douglas A-26 survivors
375:Douglas A-20 survivors
75:AfDs for this article:
2185:Anaheim Ducks records
2180:Boston Bruins records
237:Boeing B-52 survivors
191:Boeing B-47 survivors
145:Boeing B-29 survivors
83:Boeing B-17 survivors
2108:WikiProject Aircraft
1419:Procedural question.
1212:warbirdregistry.org
1152:B-47, A-26: Neutral
2245:Did you miss what
1844:That is a strange
1019:
1011:
955:
947:
891:
883:
825:
817:
71:Surviving aircraft
2276:
2074:
1979:
1873:
1807:
1689:
1611:
1597:
1561:
1122:
1040:Very regretfully
1020:
1017:
1012:
1009:
996:
956:
953:
948:
945:
927:
892:
889:
884:
881:
870:
826:
823:
818:
815:
793:
742:
686:
635:
2325:
2312:
2262:
2149:
2148:
2060:
2036:Kevin Rutherford
1975:
1859:
1793:
1675:
1598:
1588:
1547:
1108:
1016:
1008:
982:
952:
944:
913:
888:
880:
856:
847:Ra believers. —
822:
814:
779:
728:
672:
621:
600:
582:
554:
536:
508:
490:
462:
444:
416:
398:
370:
352:
324:
306:
278:
260:
232:
214:
186:
168:
130:
124:
106:
60:
59:
34:
2333:
2332:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2315:deletion review
2308:
2146:
2144:
1634:Procedural keep
1366:art lovers. --
755:of notable. --
573:
557:
527:
511:
481:
465:
435:
419:
389:
373:
343:
327:
297:
281:
251:
235:
205:
189:
159:
143:
126:
97:
81:
78:
73:
57:
55:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2331:
2329:
2320:
2319:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2281:
2280:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2208:
2207:
2202:
2197:
2192:
2187:
2182:
2177:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2158:
2157:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2047:
2046:
2028:
2027:
2008:
2007:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1954:
1940:
1939:
1921:
1920:
1901:
1900:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1630:
1629:
1619:Colonel Warden
1612:
1586:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1532:
1511:
1510:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1438:
1437:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1390:
1386:
1346:
1345:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1271:
1270:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1207:
1201:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1155:
1149:
1143:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1070:
1069:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1001:
1000:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
692:
691:
690:
602:
601:
555:
509:
463:
417:
371:
325:
279:
233:
187:
137:
136:
77:
74:
72:
69:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2330:
2318:
2316:
2311:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2298:
2294:
2290:
2279:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2234:
2230:
2226:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2206:
2203:
2201:
2198:
2196:
2193:
2191:
2188:
2186:
2183:
2181:
2178:
2176:
2173:
2172:
2166:
2162:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2156:
2153:
2151:
2150:
2140:
2136:
2132:
2129:
2128:
2121:
2117:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2095:
2091:
2087:
2083:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2049:
2048:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2030:
2029:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2010:
2009:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1997:
1991:
1988:
1982:
1978:
1973:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1952:
1949:
1948:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1923:
1922:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1906:
1903:
1902:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1884:
1883:
1876:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1849:
1848:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1828:
1827:
1810:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1782:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1639:
1635:
1632:
1631:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1613:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1570:
1569:
1564:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1537:
1533:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1496:
1493:
1492:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1474:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1446:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1417:
1416:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1384:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1329:
1328:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1254:
1253:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1208:
1205:
1202:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1191:Mark Sublette
1188:
1184:
1183:Mark Sublette
1179:
1178:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1166:
1165:
1159:
1156:
1153:
1150:
1147:
1144:
1141:
1138:
1137:
1134:
1131:
1130:
1125:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1087:Mark Sublette
1084:
1080:
1079:Mark Sublette
1075:
1072:
1071:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1025:
1021:
1013:
1003:
1002:
999:
994:
990:
986:
981:
980:
979:
972:
968:
963:
962:
961:
957:
949:
940:
936:
932:
931:
930:
925:
921:
917:
912:
911:
910:
903:
899:
898:
897:
893:
885:
875:
874:
873:
868:
864:
860:
855:
854:
853:
846:
842:
838:
833:
832:
831:
827:
819:
809:
806:
805:
796:
791:
787:
783:
778:
777:
776:
768:
767:
766:
762:
758:
754:
750:
747:
746:
745:
740:
736:
732:
727:
726:
725:
718:
714:
713:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
693:
689:
684:
680:
676:
671:
670:
669:
662:
658:
657:
656:
652:
648:
644:
641:
640:
639:
638:
633:
629:
625:
620:
619:
618:
611:
607:
598:
594:
590:
586:
581:
577:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
535:
531:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
489:
485:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
443:
439:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
397:
393:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
351:
347:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
305:
301:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
259:
255:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
213:
209:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
167:
163:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
141:
140:
134:
129:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
70:
68:
67:
64:
62:
61:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2309:
2306:
2286:
2257:
2255:
2195:Kanada-malja
2142:
2139:User:Davegnz
2134:
2130:
2055:
2053:
2031:
1994:
1989:
1972:UltraExactZZ
1950:
1946:
1945:
1924:
1904:
1885:
1854:
1852:
1845:
1788:
1786:
1780:
1749:Brilliantine
1720:Brilliantine
1670:
1668:
1637:
1633:
1614:
1601:Nick Dowling
1589:
1571:
1542:
1540:
1535:
1517:
1494:
1472:
1453:
1418:
1394:encyclopedia
1393:
1330:
1296:Brilliantine
1276:
1260:Brilliantine
1255:
1232:
1203:
1158:B-52: Delete
1157:
1151:
1145:
1139:
1132:
1103:
1101:
1073:
1046:encyclopedic
1045:
1041:
977:
975:
970:
966:
934:
908:
906:
851:
849:
844:
840:
807:
774:
772:
752:
748:
723:
721:
694:
667:
665:
642:
616:
614:
603:
138:
53:
45:
43:
31:
28:
2082:WP:AVIATION
1643:WP:AVIATION
1445:Ben Aveling
1331:Strong Keep
939:bludgeoning
2135:appreciate
2086:MickMacNee
1951:Delete all
1847:ad hominem
1767:MickMacNee
1734:MickMacNee
1702:MickMacNee
1651:MickMacNee
1647:clue stick
1478:MickMacNee
1427:EdJohnston
1383:notability
967:personally
753:definition
717:verifiable
606:Liberators
2112:Rlandmann
1890:Edward321
1522:Rlandmann
1500:NellieBly
1458:Rlandmann
1398:Rlandmann
1353:Rlandmann
1310:Rlandmann
1281:Rlandmann
1220:Rlandmann
1059:Rlandmann
904:, etc. —
757:NellieBly
663:, etc. —
608:, 15,686
2269:contribs
2165:Twas Now
2067:contribs
2017:Shimgray
1977:Evidence
1925:Keep all
1866:contribs
1800:contribs
1716:strawman
1682:contribs
1554:contribs
1536:multiple
1115:contribs
989:contribs
933:That is
920:contribs
863:contribs
786:contribs
735:contribs
679:contribs
647:Eastmain
628:contribs
133:View log
2225:Davegnz
2147:Radecki
2137:all of
1958:Davegnz
1929:Andrewa
1832:Davegnz
1454:support
1277:Comment
1233:Comment
1204:Comment
1133:Comment
1010:HARMBOY
946:HARMBOY
882:HARMBOY
845:notable
816:HARMBOY
749:Comment
576:protect
571:history
530:protect
525:history
484:protect
479:history
438:protect
433:history
392:protect
387:history
346:protect
341:history
300:protect
295:history
254:protect
249:history
208:protect
203:history
162:protect
157:history
100:protect
95:history
58:Radecki
50:WP:SNOW
2287:Dave:
2273:e-mail
2163:Since
2071:e-mail
1870:e-mail
1804:e-mail
1686:e-mail
1576:BillCJ
1558:e-mail
1518:aren't
1473:Oppose
1368:rogerd
1335:rogerd
1119:e-mail
1042:delete
993:e-mail
924:e-mail
867:e-mail
790:e-mail
739:e-mail
683:e-mail
632:e-mail
580:delete
534:delete
488:delete
442:delete
396:delete
350:delete
304:delete
258:delete
212:delete
166:delete
128:delete
104:delete
2293:Ahunt
2256:Twas
2054:Twas
1910:Erudy
1853:Twas
1787:Twas
1669:Twas
1541:Twas
1237:Dpmuk
1218:). --
1216:WP:EL
1168:Dpmuk
1102:Twas
1051:WP:OR
976:Twas
907:Twas
850:Twas
773:Twas
722:Twas
703:Ahunt
666:Twas
615:Twas
610:P-47s
597:views
589:watch
585:links
551:views
543:watch
539:links
505:views
497:watch
493:links
459:views
451:watch
447:links
413:views
405:watch
401:links
367:views
359:watch
355:links
321:views
313:watch
309:links
275:views
267:watch
263:links
229:views
221:watch
217:links
183:views
175:watch
171:links
131:) – (
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
2297:talk
2265:talk
2229:talk
2131:Keep
2116:talk
2090:talk
2063:talk
2040:talk
2032:Keep
2021:talk
2001:talk
1990:Keep
1962:talk
1947:Keep
1933:talk
1914:talk
1908:way.
1905:Keep
1894:talk
1886:Keep
1862:talk
1836:talk
1796:talk
1771:talk
1753:talk
1738:talk
1724:talk
1706:talk
1678:talk
1655:talk
1623:talk
1615:Keep
1605:talk
1590:Note
1580:talk
1550:talk
1526:talk
1504:talk
1482:talk
1462:talk
1452:I'd
1431:talk
1402:talk
1372:talk
1357:talk
1339:talk
1314:talk
1300:talk
1285:talk
1264:talk
1241:talk
1224:talk
1195:talk
1187:talk
1172:talk
1111:talk
1091:talk
1083:talk
1074:Keep
1063:talk
1018:TALK
985:talk
954:TALK
935:your
916:talk
890:TALK
859:talk
824:TALK
808:Keep
782:talk
761:talk
731:talk
719:. —
707:talk
695:Keep
675:talk
651:talk
643:Keep
624:talk
593:logs
567:talk
563:edit
547:logs
521:talk
517:edit
501:logs
475:talk
471:edit
455:logs
429:talk
425:edit
409:logs
383:talk
379:edit
363:logs
337:talk
333:edit
317:logs
291:talk
287:edit
271:logs
245:talk
241:edit
225:logs
199:talk
195:edit
179:logs
153:talk
149:edit
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
46:keep
2258:Now
2056:Now
2013:FPC
1996:DGG
1855:Now
1789:Now
1781:all
1671:Now
1596:.
1543:Now
1425:).
1104:Now
978:Now
971:two
909:Now
852:Now
841:all
775:Now
724:Now
668:Now
617:Now
2299:)
2291:-
2271:•
2267:•
2263:(
2231:)
2145:AK
2118:)
2092:)
2069:•
2065:•
2061:(
2042:)
2023:|
2019:|
2003:)
1964:)
1935:)
1916:)
1896:)
1868:•
1864:•
1860:(
1838:)
1802:•
1798:•
1794:(
1773:)
1755:)
1740:)
1726:)
1708:)
1684:•
1680:•
1676:(
1657:)
1649:.
1625:)
1607:)
1582:)
1556:•
1552:•
1548:(
1528:)
1506:)
1484:)
1464:)
1433:)
1404:)
1374:)
1359:)
1341:)
1316:)
1302:)
1287:)
1266:)
1243:)
1226:)
1197:)
1174:)
1117:•
1113:•
1109:(
1093:)
1065:)
1022:)
991:•
987:•
983:(
958:)
922:•
918:•
914:(
894:)
865:•
861:•
857:(
837:Ra
828:)
788:•
784:•
780:(
763:)
737:•
733:•
729:(
709:)
681:•
677:•
673:(
653:)
630:•
626:•
622:(
595:|
591:|
587:|
583:|
578:|
574:|
569:|
565:|
549:|
545:|
541:|
537:|
532:|
528:|
523:|
519:|
503:|
499:|
495:|
491:|
486:|
482:|
477:|
473:|
457:|
453:|
449:|
445:|
440:|
436:|
431:|
427:|
411:|
407:|
403:|
399:|
394:|
390:|
385:|
381:|
365:|
361:|
357:|
353:|
348:|
344:|
339:|
335:|
319:|
315:|
311:|
307:|
302:|
298:|
293:|
289:|
273:|
269:|
265:|
261:|
256:|
252:|
247:|
243:|
227:|
223:|
219:|
215:|
210:|
206:|
201:|
197:|
181:|
177:|
173:|
169:|
164:|
160:|
155:|
151:|
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
56:AK
2295:(
2275:)
2227:(
2114:(
2088:(
2073:)
2038:(
1999:(
1974:~
1960:(
1931:(
1912:(
1892:(
1872:)
1834:(
1806:)
1769:(
1751:(
1736:(
1722:(
1704:(
1688:)
1653:(
1621:(
1603:(
1599:—
1578:(
1560:)
1524:(
1502:(
1480:(
1460:(
1429:(
1400:(
1370:(
1355:(
1337:(
1312:(
1298:(
1283:(
1262:(
1239:(
1222:(
1193:(
1185:(
1170:(
1121:)
1089:(
1081:(
1061:(
1014:(
1007:P
995:)
950:(
943:P
926:)
886:(
879:P
869:)
820:(
813:P
792:)
759:(
741:)
705:(
685:)
649:(
634:)
599:)
561:(
553:)
515:(
507:)
469:(
461:)
423:(
415:)
377:(
369:)
331:(
323:)
285:(
277:)
239:(
231:)
193:(
185:)
147:(
135:)
125:(
123:)
85:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.