Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Boeing customer codes (2nd nomination)

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boeing customer codes

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

A previous AfD for this page focused on the fact that it was then unreferenced. That was addressed, and the article was kept. But the topic itself fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as there's no indication of notability to what essentially amounts to trivia or business codes. We have one source, what appears to be one book's appendix. Can you imagine this being covered in another encyclopedia? I can't. BDD (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an encyclopedic topic. Pburka (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not sure in what way this list article lacks discrimination. If anything it is highly discriminating. It doesn't seem to come under any of the four categories in WP:INDISCRIMINATE and, if these categories are meant as examplars, it doesn't seem to suffer the ills that these categories are supposed to lead us into. If I was to want to take a pot shot I would suggest WP:NOTDIRECTORY, in particular "an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings". Perhaps that can wait until the next AFD. Now, as it happens, I'm simply not interested in this topic but I can see why it is helpful encyclopedically. The Malasia Airways aircraft that vanished was a Boeing 777-2H6ER and I now can tell from the H6 that it was originally sold to this airline. That may be just what I was wanting to know. If this is not included in other encyclopedias, that would seem to strengthen the case here, not weaken it. As for it not being an encyclopedic topic, well, I think it is encyclopedic. I think a case could well be made for removing from the list airlines that do not have articles and codes that do not have references. Thincat (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This information is actually of importance to hobbyists / planespotters who are interested in the heritage of a given airliner. As the article says, these customer codes are assigned by Boeing according to the original customer. Each airline used to make numerous "customized" configuration choices when they ordered a new airliner. (This happens less now than in the past.) Boeing's unique codes allowed anyone to understand which configuration applied for a given airliner. i found this site tonight because I wanted to see who originally flew the Google 767. This is a 767-238, which means its a 767-200 originally sold to Qantas. This is likely to be seen as useless trivia to most, but I was interested in finding out and was disappointed to see that someone wanted to delete this page. If it is redundant within Wikipedia, then that is another story. My two cents. Pilotneil2 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotneil2 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I considered merging to the articles on the different planes, because this article describes variants on the different models, which are already partly covered in e.g. Boeing 777#Variants, and it's usual to include some description of variants of vehicles, planes, etc, in their articles. But a number of the codes seem to refer to multiple planes. I still wouldn't necessarily oppose merging if it can be done neatly. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thincat and Pilotneil. These is no 'natural' home elsewhere on WP for this information, so a merge is not an option. These are not model codes, a 767-200 is a 767-200. But a 767-238 delivered to Qantas is not the same as a 767-277 delivered to Australian airline Ansett, the customer code specification may include such things as number and manufacturer of passenger seats; avionics fitment; and number, position and layout of galleys; and Ansett's five 767-277s were the only 767s with flight engineer stations. There are many Wikipedia articles which mention specific codes, this list can only be helpful for lay readers of these articles. YSSYguy (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't see how it fails Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. --JetBlast (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a useful list for readers for example to understand codes that appear in wider press coverage of accidents and incidents. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ali Fazal (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As Boeing has assigned unique customer codes to each plane (excluding the Dreamliners) for every 7x7 built, this helps to track the specific plane in accidents and incidents. This is in addition to reasons posted as per Thincat and Pilotneil. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AFAIK, Boeing was unique in assigning these customer codes. The list explains why BOAC Flight 712 was a 707-465, not a 707-436. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep I would consider this unencyclopdic shite but yet it's somewhat interesting, I would say tho improve sources!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:26, 27 May 2014 (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.