Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 known losses

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 known losses

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

This list was prodded almost two years ago; the prod was removed by the page author with a promise to expand the list, which has not happened, at all. The list draws some of its data from a potentially unreliable source (scramble.nl), but there is no way to tell which data comes from where. In addition, the list is by its own admission incomplete and unlikely to become complete. As it is, the page is a very, very long list of "X crashed at Y" without any details. I'd argue this fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:AIRCRASH; the author's assertion in response to the prod that "information like this is indeed of interest for every aircraft type" is fallacious, as Wikipedia is not a directory of aircraft crashes. Now, List of combat losses of the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 would be a notable, verifiable and intriguing topic, but a list that simply lists every single crash of the type isn't something that should be on Wikipedia. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination and mainly as an indiscriminate list. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , as nominated reasons. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:AIRCRASH. On top of that this list is of virtually no use to any reader as the refs are not indicated for any individual loss, so none can be verified, additionally the lack of any details makes it pointless. - Ahunt (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For above reasons; further, to make this a really worthwhile reference would take an almost full-time-job dedication, which I don't have time for, and as I'd realised - it would probably require in large part original research. I do like the combat losses idea, however. 2Q (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Ahunt Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2011 (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.