Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moyes Litespeed
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Moyes Litespeed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete for lack of notability. One mention in a directory of leisure aviation does not confer notability. Much, if not all, of the information in the directory was supplied directly from the manufacturer. There appears to be no independent coverage, not to mention any significant independent coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as per Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) all aircraft types are notable because they are all written up extensively in standard references such as Janes All The World's Aircraft, which established notability. I do not have access to Janes on a daily basis, but I can get access and add sufficient refs to clearly show notability on that basis alone. Furthermore the notability of this particular hang glider design is not even close to in doubt. The Lightspeed has won dozens of world, national and regional championships and has been extensively written up and reviewed in the aviation press. I have already started adding operational history text with refs that show the clear notability of this aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have now added accounts of many Litespeed record flights and championship wins to the article from the respected European hang gliding magazine Cross Country's website. They have about 100 more articles online about other wins and records by Litespeeds that I can add, but I think you get the idea from the text that I have added so far. These hundreds of articles were very easy to find with a quick web search. I didn't even have to go downtown to the public library to pore through Janes. It seems pretty clear that in starting this AFD you missed the required steps at WP:BEFORE. Can you now please withdraw this AFD? - Ahunt (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep clearly an extensively used competition glider, article still needs more work but that is not a reason for deletion. No reason to doubt that a directory is independent of the manufacturer with its own editorial content. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not any directory, that particular directory: World directory of leisure aviation published by the Societe Des Editions Retine. --Bejnar (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was refering to that directory which is published in three languages and is a well known guide to leisure aviation. MilborneOne (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not any directory, that particular directory: World directory of leisure aviation published by the Societe Des Editions Retine. --Bejnar (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Each individual type/family of aircraft is notable per the aircraft notability standard and per long-standing consensus. Once an aircraft model is verified using reliable sources that it exists, it is notable and deserves an article. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) is not a guideline or a standard, it is an essay, and it deviates rather widely from the general notability guideline. It has not received general consensus. --Bejnar (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATA is also an essay, but nobody raises "just an essay" comments when it is referenced at AfD. More to the point, when I referenced "long-standing consensus" I was not referring to Notability (aircraft) in the least. WP:CONSENSUS is not attained solely through discussion - it is also attained through the normal process of noncontroversial editing. And the normal process of noncontroversial editing has estabished consensus that all types of aircraft that can be reliably verified as independent types are, indeed, notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article, as it now stands, has many reliable third party refs that clearly show that this is a notable subject to any required standard, including WP:N and WP:GNG. I think it is pretty clear that you didn't do your homework and ensure that you had complied with the requirements of WP:BEFORE in starting this AFD. As a result I would suggest that you stop wasting everyone's time on this flawed nomination, admit that you made a mistake and withdraw the AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article cites reliable third party sources, unfortunately most of them do not discuss the Moyes Litespeed. It is merely mentioned in passing as the vehicle that the winner flew. The only one that discusses the Moyes Litespeed is a significant way is Evgeniya Laritskaya's blog. Can't you all find significant discussions of the vehicle itself in independent, reliable third party sources? Or is the only data from independent, reliable third party sources is that it was used to win this or that race? (As indicated above, I question the independent status of the information in the Societe Des Editions Retine directory.) --Bejnar (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that these independent refs establish that the aircraft has won dozens of major competitions and set numerous records establishes that the subject is notable. There are dozens of detailed reviews of the aircraft, but by convention within the aviation publishing world most of these are not posted on the internet, but published in paper magazines, some of which I have here and need to go though, issue by issue. The type will also be extensively written up in Janes over many years and variants, but I will have to get to the central library to get those refs. In the meantime I think, as you have admitted, that there is no doubt that this is a notable subject and therefore the AFD should be withdrawn. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still trying to understand your objection to the World Directory of Leisure Aviation. You said "One mention in a directory of leisure aviation does not confer notability. Much, if not all, of the information in the directory was supplied directly from the manufacturer". This is a well-respected publication of long-standing, with an independent European editorial team, an independent publisher and it is distributed in three language editions all over the world. As noted no one else commenting here has a problem with it as an independent third part reference. Your assertion that they use manufacturer's information doesn't hold water. No publication, not Janes, not the Observers Book of Aircraft, not Flying Magazine, no publication, does not use manufacturer’s data in their writing. Do you think each year Jane's sends staff out to measure the wingspan of a Boeing 747 to put it into All the World's Aircraft? They use manufacturer's data, which is the same data used and accepted by national regulatory and certification authorities around the world. Using manufacturer's data is not a valid reason to reject a reference. - Ahunt (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If a source is cited solely for the manufacture's data, and that source uses just the data receive from the manufacture, then it is not n indepedent souse with respect to that data. It may be independent for other data. This is similar to a newspaper which may be independent in reporting news, but not so when printing a company's news release. --Bejnar (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still dont understand your objections you are possibly not looking at the same source as other editors, The World Directory of Leisure Aviation has editorial content with an editorial committee so clearly is not just a bunch of company specs reprinted. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the article, look at what The World Directory of Leisure Aviation was cited for. It is not cited for any of their editorial content. It is just cited for specs.Bejnar (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly not looking at the same article as I am as far as I can see it used as a reference for the introduction and the design and development hence I thought was the reason behind you original argument that it doesnt show that the glider is notable. It clearly is an independant source so time for WP:SNOW I think. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Bejnar: I think you missed actually reading the article. The ref in question is reference "1" and is used throughout the lead and Design and development section, as well as the Variants section as a reference, because the text in the ref supports the text written in the article. It actually is not the reference cited in the Specifications section. I think this AFD nomination has clearly run its course and no logical argument has been made to delete this article, which is why deletion has received no support at all from anyone. If you can't admit that you were mistaken in nominating it that is fine, it can be closed regardless. - Ahunt (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly not looking at the same article as I am as far as I can see it used as a reference for the introduction and the design and development hence I thought was the reason behind you original argument that it doesnt show that the glider is notable. It clearly is an independant source so time for WP:SNOW I think. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the article, look at what The World Directory of Leisure Aviation was cited for. It is not cited for any of their editorial content. It is just cited for specs.Bejnar (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still dont understand your objections you are possibly not looking at the same source as other editors, The World Directory of Leisure Aviation has editorial content with an editorial committee so clearly is not just a bunch of company specs reprinted. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If a source is cited solely for the manufacture's data, and that source uses just the data receive from the manufacture, then it is not n indepedent souse with respect to that data. It may be independent for other data. This is similar to a newspaper which may be independent in reporting news, but not so when printing a company's news release. --Bejnar (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still trying to understand your objection to the World Directory of Leisure Aviation. You said "One mention in a directory of leisure aviation does not confer notability. Much, if not all, of the information in the directory was supplied directly from the manufacturer". This is a well-respected publication of long-standing, with an independent European editorial team, an independent publisher and it is distributed in three language editions all over the world. As noted no one else commenting here has a problem with it as an independent third part reference. Your assertion that they use manufacturer's information doesn't hold water. No publication, not Janes, not the Observers Book of Aircraft, not Flying Magazine, no publication, does not use manufacturer’s data in their writing. Do you think each year Jane's sends staff out to measure the wingspan of a Boeing 747 to put it into All the World's Aircraft? They use manufacturer's data, which is the same data used and accepted by national regulatory and certification authorities around the world. Using manufacturer's data is not a valid reason to reject a reference. - Ahunt (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that these independent refs establish that the aircraft has won dozens of major competitions and set numerous records establishes that the subject is notable. There are dozens of detailed reviews of the aircraft, but by convention within the aviation publishing world most of these are not posted on the internet, but published in paper magazines, some of which I have here and need to go though, issue by issue. The type will also be extensively written up in Janes over many years and variants, but I will have to get to the central library to get those refs. In the meantime I think, as you have admitted, that there is no doubt that this is a notable subject and therefore the AFD should be withdrawn. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article cites reliable third party sources, unfortunately most of them do not discuss the Moyes Litespeed. It is merely mentioned in passing as the vehicle that the winner flew. The only one that discusses the Moyes Litespeed is a significant way is Evgeniya Laritskaya's blog. Can't you all find significant discussions of the vehicle itself in independent, reliable third party sources? Or is the only data from independent, reliable third party sources is that it was used to win this or that race? (As indicated above, I question the independent status of the information in the Societe Des Editions Retine directory.) --Bejnar (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article, as it now stands, has many reliable third party refs that clearly show that this is a notable subject to any required standard, including WP:N and WP:GNG. I think it is pretty clear that you didn't do your homework and ensure that you had complied with the requirements of WP:BEFORE in starting this AFD. As a result I would suggest that you stop wasting everyone's time on this flawed nomination, admit that you made a mistake and withdraw the AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATA is also an essay, but nobody raises "just an essay" comments when it is referenced at AfD. More to the point, when I referenced "long-standing consensus" I was not referring to Notability (aircraft) in the least. WP:CONSENSUS is not attained solely through discussion - it is also attained through the normal process of noncontroversial editing. And the normal process of noncontroversial editing has estabished consensus that all types of aircraft that can be reliably verified as independent types are, indeed, notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) is not a guideline or a standard, it is an essay, and it deviates rather widely from the general notability guideline. It has not received general consensus. --Bejnar (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also note that this article was nominated for deletion within an hour of creation, while it was still under construction. Don't assume negative notability, people. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I should add that 34 minutes after the article was first created a question was asked about notability on Talk:Moyes Litespeed, but rather than waiting for an answer the question asker commenced the AFD exactly ten minutes later. This really is not ideal. - Ahunt (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Afd's are about reasoned discussion, they are not votes. This Afd is about notability. It is about meeting the requirements of the [[WP:Notability}] guideline. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS such as Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) is not applicable. Significant coverage in reliable third party sources is required. Appropriate published sources that are not available on the internet are just fine. I look forward to seeing some. --Bejnar (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure which article you are referring to. The article we are discussing here currently has 25 independent third party references that show it is one of the most significant hang glider designs in the past 20 years. - Ahunt (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2012 (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.