Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Boeing customer codes (3rd 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. The consensus is clear that this article should be Kept with only the nominator arguing that it is unsuitable for the project. Maybe this should be the last time this article is brought to AFD as it has been Kept every time it's been nominated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boeing customer codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Specifically WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which is basically what this is, a directory of customer codes from Boeing. If they're notable for the incident a plane is in or if they would cause confusion if they weren't there then they can simply be noted in a footnote or mentioned. It also fails things described at WP:SAL. WP:SALAT states this, "A list should be defined so that a reasonable number of readers seek it out." this is really only of interest to plane nerds or business people. It would only be interesting to most people if a plane is called something other than what they were expecting because it's a customer code. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't see any convincing arguments for deletion. The 2014 AfD claimed that the topic failed WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but consensus at the time was that it did not. I think it's safe to say that the large number of "plane nerds" qualify as a "reasonable number of readers". As a plane spotter myself, I have used this article numerous times to help identify Boeing aircraft which pass through my local airport. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say that the average reader is not a plane nerd and that compared to the rest of readers on Wikipedia, plane nerds are a minority. Also you've pointed out the exact issue with the article: It's really only useful to plane spotters. And Boeing literally has a website that's basically a duplicate of this list. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that WP:SALAT uses "reasonable number of readers" and not "majority of readers". Most Wikipedia lists, or even articles in general, would not be of interest to a majority of readers anyway. Plane spotting is a very large hobby, with plane spotters all over the world. If plane spotters alone do not constitute a "reasonable number of readers", then perhaps most lists on Wikipedia should be deleted. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most lists are useful to more than just a specific niche of people. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most niches of people aren't large, globe-spanning hobbies. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comments at the 2nd AfD discussion. Mjroots (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  These can simply be listed in a footnote if it would cause confusion otherwise. We don't need to send people to a list of seemingly abritrary number and letter combos just to try and find out why. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:GNG and is of value to a wide variety of readers from planespotters to historians and researchers. Also a note to the nominator: please Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. There is no need to attack, and try to refute each respondent here. It is fairly obvious at this point in time that we are at WP:SNOW keep. - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not attempting to bludgeon anyone. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  - Ahunt (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per all the previous keeps, and per all the responses to the nom's persistent, but apparently unintentional, bludgeoning. (Now that they've been warned, further bludgeoning will be intentional, and will be reported as such.) Also, the article isn't just useful to plane nerds and plane spotters, but to the uninitiated readers who may be baffled by Boeing's codes, but wants to learn what they mean, which, amazingly, is exactly what an encyclopedia article, even a list, is for. BilCat (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Evidently given the page has attracted over 3,000 views in the last month this content is valuable to our readers. I don't see how deleting this makes Wikipedia better. Garuda3 (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2022 (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.