Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEPECAT

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. (non-admin closure) ——SN 54129 17:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SEPECAT

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This page contains nothing that isn't already on SEPECAT Jaguar and is just an unnecessary fork of that page. SEPECAT was a one product entity. This page should be deleted or replaced by a REDIRECT to SEPECAT Jaguar. Here is a diff showing what was there before a whole lot of content from SEPECAT Jaguar was put on the page: [1] Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Aircraft articles shouldn't be burdened with company-specific information, and this article is well-sourced and lengthy as it is, and it's a notable topic. Any duplicate information about the company on Jaguar article should be removed. - BilCat (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BilCat for a manufacturer of more than one product I would agree, but SEPECAT was a single product venture, SEPECAT and SEPECAT Jaguar are synonymous and all of this page is duplicated from the Jaguar page. Please look at both. Mztourist (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did look at both. I simply disagree with your point of view that two articles are unnecessary, which I have addressed to my satisfaction. - BilCat (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK then please remove all the SEPECAT JAGUAR information from the SEPECAT page and see if what remains justifies a page. Here is the diff showing what was there before a whole lot of content from SEPECAT Jaguar was put on the page: [2] Mztourist (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I intended to after the AfD is over, assuming this article is kept. Otherwise it's just wasted work. - BilCat (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        OK I'll do it then to show the point. All that's left is two sentences, which hardly burdens the SEPECAT Jaguar page with "company-specific information". Mztourist (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:POINTy disruption reverted. - BilCat (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Its not POINTy disruption, its showing what the page looks like once all the duplicated information from SEPECAT Jaguar has been removed, something that you said above was "wasted work". I understand why you don't want to do this because it makes the untrimmed page look more substantial and worthy of retaining rather than the two sentences of content that remain. Mztourist (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Transall was also a 'one product entity', not a valid rationale for article deletion. I would be very disappointed to be redirected to the Jaguar article if I was interested in SEPECAT. Manufacturing companies/organisations of aircraft are almost always notable and have their own article, even individual people have articles, eg Jim Bede. Splitting an article like this is recommended per Wikipedia:Summary style...A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own.

If an editor discovered a fantastic reference source on SEPECAT how would they advance the subject to Featured article status if it is not covered by its own article? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the courtesy of notifying the article creator and associated wiki project has not happened (per WP:AFD). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transall should be deleted on the same basis as that page is all about its sole product, the Transall C-160 and on a quick review it seems most of Transall is copied from that page. As detailed above, if you remove all the duplicated information from SEPECAT Jaguar page you're left with two sentences. I think at this stage the possibility of "an editor discover(ing) a fantastic reference source on SEPECAT" and "advanc(ing) the subject to Featured article status" is highly unlikely, but if it were the case they could just create a new page. I am not obliged to notify the article creator and my comments: Talk:SEPECAT#Is this a necessary fork? have been on the Talk Page since 14 February (when the page was only 2 sentences), giving all interested parties plenty of time to respond. SEPECAT and Transall each contain minimal information about the companies, but they have been plumped up with information about their sole product to justify the existence of separate pages.Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the manufacturer is separate from the product. The company and the product are notable separately. Lightburst (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2020 (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.