Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft design

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 Hopelessly compromised. I really fail to see how any admin can find any useful consensus from a discussion which has been so completely railroaded by a page move that for 5 days we have been discussing a different article. . Spartaz Humbug! 08:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft design (neé Aircraft design process)

edit
Aircraft design process (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD from August. This article was created as a WP:COAT for some fanciful theorising on bionic aircraft (see this version). Since then it has rightly been trimmed down to "design process" and no more. However that has left it almost entirely devoid of content. There isn't anything left in this article that isn't a self-evident platitude. As such, we'd be better off without it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a notable topic, but this article is a travesty and isn't even a starting point for something better. It's just boilerplate. Repeated sections all begin, "<section> design is looked into in each phase, thus allowing the elimination of errors." You might as well replace it with "airplanes have wings, so we have a wing design phase. Make sure they stay attached!"
As to "sources" ? Two coffee-table encyclopedias and a website selling its own book? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see an article on this topic. Best route to getting one is, IMHO, clean-slate deletion. This is a fairly large (10K) article, yet it says nothing. There's nothing on this page capable of being rescued. There's also a copyvio issue floating around. The quickest and simplest way to a usable article is to demolish this first. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is nice to see the article rescue cavalry arrive as usual, but the problem is they often vote "keep" and then ride away into the sunset without actually fixing the article and solving the problem. I would say that if you are serious about rescuing the article then please show us that by starting to fix it up now. That would be much more convincing that the usual "life-ring" tagging. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love articles being rescued, but the whole premise of the ARS is that of journalism: a competent writer can write well on any topic. Whilst this response to WP:SOFIXIT is indeed welcome when it's good content hidden beneath a mire of pooor copywriting (please someone, take a look at Resonance method of ice destruction) I don't believe that any copyeditor (a breed for whom I have great respect) can take Aircraft design process and make something good from it. It needs creation and structure to begin with, by someone who already understands its technical ___domain. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It this point we seem to be heading towards one of three outcomes for this article: 1. The ARS cavalry use their "tens of thousands" of references to rewrite this into a sterling article, 2. It gets deleted here at AFD, or 3. It gets "kept" and then stubbified down to remove the copyright violations and unsourced OR, leaving about three sentences. - Ahunt (talk)
I'd be OK with just three sentences. They wouldn't be useful, but at least it would be quicker for readers to realise there's no useful article there (which a redlink could do more effectively). The worst case though, and most likely outcome, is that an article of modest size gets left behind, it takes time to read it, but it still doesn't say anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing any consensus here for a keep vote followed by not removing the copyright vios and OR. I am okay with any of those three outcomes I listed above, but I agree that deleting it is preferable for the reasons you have stated: there is no useful content right now. - Ahunt (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the article's subject is notable, then the article has a right to exist. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. And anything is better than no article at all. People would be less likely to create a new article by this name if they saw a previous one existed and was deleted. Destroying something in the hopes that something better comes around, is absolutely ridiculous. With the massive number of books published on the subject, it is clearly notable. Dream Focus 18:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User:Colonel Warden has moved the article to Aircraft design. I really don't think this is appropriate while an AfD is in process. His edit summary says "common name", but this is incorrect. An "aircraft design" refers to a specific model of an aircraft, which is created via the "aircraft design process" which is the subject of this article. This was the original title of this article and has already debated and discussed at Talk:Aircraft design and subject to consensus there. I am not sure this editor understands the terminology involved and therefore this should be reversed.- Ahunt (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this what you call rescuing an article? You have moved to to an inappropriate name that was rejected by consensus (you did read the article talk page, right?) and then stubbified it in the middle of an AfD. I think this is totally inappropriete. - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was then and this is now. The source which now supports the article calls the topic aircraft design. It is a reliable source. Please produce sources if you wish to dispute the title. Opinionated discussions which are not supported by sources carry little weight here. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to have eliminated it and replaced it with a different article. Are you going to add back in all the valid information? [1] There should be a wikiproject for aircraft, so I'll go find them and get their opinions. Someone who understand the information is bested suited to comment on this article. Dream Focus 20:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone already did. [2]. Dream Focus 20:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was me that posted that notification when this AfD started. I am a member of WikiProject Aircraft. Yes indeed it seems User:Colonel Warden has moved this article, up for AfD, to a new (and previously rejected) name and changed the subject of the article as well. I am assuming this is just subject matter ignorance on his part as exemplified by his answer above "That was then and this is now", indicting he isn't familiar with the subject at all. I am not impressed with this attempt to subvert an in-progress AfD, nor with his rude and dismissive response above, although it seems to be in-line with recent behaviour by this user. - Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reply to DreamFocus) The only thing I'm not understanding here is why we're even discussing deleting a topic of such immense notability. Any editors who think they can do a better job than myself or the previous editor(s) are welcome to have a go — I have just demonstrated how easy it is. Deleting previous version by means of the deletion function rather than the ordinary process of editing revisions is not our editing policy because it makes the edit history inaccessible and disrupts the standard wiki process of update, amendment and attribution. Deletion/AFD are for hopeless topics with no merit and that is manifestly not the case here.
(reply to Ahunt) Please see WP:BOLD. Is it a lack of such boldness which has prevented you from rolling your sleeves up and working upon this topic? Or what? I just don't get it. What do you do in the aviation project? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Colonel Warden: Just as recently as 10 November 2010 it was decided by consensus at ANI that you were being disruptive and you were instructed to stop being disruptive. Attacking members of Wikiproject Aircraft for not fixing this article is disruptive. Questioning my contributions to Wikipedia is very off-topic and is disruptive. Deleting most of the text of the article and changing the name of it so it is on a different subject in the middle of an AfD is disruptive. Please stop being disruptive. - Ahunt (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong confess 21:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless improved - The crux of the argument is that Dream Focus and Colonel Warden (who epitomize Wikipedia inclusionism) believe that an article should be kept if its subject can be demonstrated to pass WP:GNG, no matter how terrible the article is. Dream Focus said "anything is better than no article at all". That may be your opinion, and you can say it over and over again, but there is no consensus on Wikipedia for that statement. That opinion is not necessarily shared by everyone. WP:IMPERFECT applies to a point, but if an article about a notable subject is horribly written or contains virtually no information other than a blindingly obvious dictionary definition (i.e. "Aircraft design is the design of aircraft," which is the current state of the article), then my opinion is that no article is better than a terrible article. If no one is interested in investing the time to create a useful article right now, then it is better to delete it and wait until someone comes along who is interested enough to invest the time and effort required to write a decent article. A relevant essay is WP:Delete the junk. SnottyWong confess 21:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't agree with the renaming without consensus while the AfD is in progress and I believe the article content is as bad or worse than what was there before (and I agree that it was monumentally useless). I'm an inclusionist if possible, to me that means that the original title should be kept. The article was supposed to be about the process of designing an aircraft not how they have evolved to be over the years (see History of aviation for that). It is a very complex subject and difficult to cover in an encyclopaedic way. If you trust me I could try to rewrite it, examples of articles on similar subjects that I have either created, split or otherwise worked on can be seen at Aircraft fabric covering, Aircraft Flight Control System, Fly-by-Wire or even the lowly Interplane strut, all of these article are deliberately simplified for the reader's benefit, not perfect (all the 'cn' tags were added by me to existing text BTW) but they are watched to prevent rubbish being entered. I am a practising aircraft engineer and pilot but not a designer. Aspects of continuing airworthiness (aircraft maintenance) require compliance with current mandatory design standards (FAA, CAA BCAR, EASA, OSTIV etc.), even more so when carrying out, approving and certifying modifications to existing aircraft, they did not need to worry about this years ago but quickly learned (DH Comet square windows for example). To keep the article I would recommend reverting to the original title, knocking it back to a referenced definition with some examples (notable aircraft designers and their aircraft?), throw it back at the aircraft project (we know it has been highlighted as a problem now) and we will try to sort it out, remembering that there is no deadline. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original title of the article was Aircraft design, just as it is now. If you review the edit history, you will see that it was first created as a redirect to Aeronautics. It was then expanded to an article by User:KVDP in 2009. The move to the title aircraft design process was subsequent to this but was poorly executed because the lead of the article continued to remain as Aircraft design throughout the subsequent edits. That bold title was all I retained in my rewrite and so it was natural to realign the article's title with its lead. Aircraft design is also the common name for the topic. Google Books reports 28,500 books with the words aircraft and design in the title. There are only 14 which also include the word process. That's a ratio of 2000:1. So, to summarise, that's three reasons to have the title at aircraft design:
  1. It's the original title
  2. It's the common name, per WP:COMMONNAME
  3. It's consistent with the lead per WP:BOLDTITLE
  • But it doesn't have to be either/or. If you want to write about the aircraft design process then you now have a clean sheet on which to do so. Aircraft design is a larger topic of which the process forms a part. Other sections would include the history of aircraft designs and their evolution, per the current draft; educational and professional institutions and qualifications; famous aircraft designers and design bureaus; design techniques such as blueprints, CAD, modelling and simulations; artistic style or decoration in designs; the influence of materials and components; and so on. The topic seems large enough that there's room for all and a substantial FA quality article should be the goal.
Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new title seems fine. More logical. I doubt anyone noticed the old talk page discussion about this, it from over a year ago. Consensus change, different people around to comment on it, and different information presented for them to think about. The name can be discussed on the talk page if someone has a problem with it. No need to go on about that here. Dream Focus 11:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comment on this (further expanded below) is that, yes, there is room for articles on both "Aircraft design" and "Aircraft design process". However, this discussion here started on the "Aircraft design process" chunk and has now been mutilated into the "Aircraft design" part. Why was it decided to change the topic of an article under AfD? I'm not a Wiki-lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the AfD process isn't for changing the title and topic of an article without consensus. Colonel Warden, why didn't you make a new article at Aircraft design and let this AfD run its course? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated opinion: that this AfD is moot -- as the article that was nominated no longer exists, in name or in substance. This should not be read as an endorsement of the current article, which appears aimed more at surviving AfD than informing the reader. I can only hope that when all this settles down, and the ARS wanders off to some new quixotic crusade, somebody will actually get around to writing a decent article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kitfoxxe: I understand there used to be time on wikipedia, before I was an editor and only a reader, where almost no one would ever advocate for the deletion of a poor article on a notable subject, but would quickly work individually and as teams to replace it/repair it/improve it with a usable stub and/or article. In large part, those editors made wikipedia what it is, and I thank them for it.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am a little confused right now. What article are we talking about here? "Aircraft design process" or "Aircraft design". It seems to me that this AfD started for an article called "Aircraft design process", which concievebly was about the process by which aircraft are designed and built. (See the DoD's eye sore for one aspect of that). The article was renamed and the content was rewritten to be a seemingly different article called "Aircraft design", which is not about the aircraft design process (which was the whole point of the original AfD), but is a broad article much like Aircraft. So it seems like the half (or more) of the comments in this AfD need to be thrown out because they apply to an article that no longer exists. How are we supposed to proceed here? Should we be discussing the new "Aircraft design" article or the old "Aircraft design process" article? As a practicing engineer, those are rather different topics that require different approaches. (For example, last week's Aviation Week & Space Technology feature story was about major changes in the aircraft design process, but had little to do with actual aircraft design.) Can someone clear this up for me so we can have an intelligent and (perhaps more importantly) relevant discussion? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree - this AfD process has been completely disrupted by the article being moved to a new topic and then being rewritten as a completely new article on a new subject. To even further complicate matters the new article is not of good quality and is mostly off even the new topic and deals more with History of aviation and a list of famous aircraft designers, than the topic it purports to be about. Furthermore the new title Aircraft design was previously rejected as inappropriate by a consensus before, beacuse it is confusing as to whether it refers to the process of designing aircraft or "an aircraft design", the type definition of a particular aircraft type. The process has been so disrupted by an editor trying to prove a WP:POINT, as noted above, that I am not sure how to proceed at this point either. - Ahunt (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close without prejudice to nom of new article? The rewrite was BOLD, but wasn't reverted, so its like an AfD on two different articles right now, I gather.--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are two quite separate articles, on different topics.
Some of this comes back to the nature and appropriate role of ARS and the relevance of WP:Delete the junk. There appears to be a broad agreement that Aircraft design process was indeed "junk" and needed serious repair. Opinions then vary on how to carry this out: I'd favour the clean-slate approach. Delete to a redlink and start again at leisure, as a new article. The ARS approach though seems to be different. It "abhors a vacuum" and assumes that WP cannot bear to have this article missing. The process was to stubbify it back to near zero (which deletes as much content as the redlink would have done) and then to rapidly expand the article, within the time constraints of an AfD. The intention obviously is to fix it before the AfD closes, so that everyone then changes their !vote and we all live happily. Heroic work by the good Colonel, but is this really the best way to work?
To my mind, this approach is wrong on two counts: It's obviously a hard way to work, under that deadline pressure and ongoing threat of deletion. Who wants to work so hard, so fast, when you know that some proportion will still be zapped anyway? (Believe me, I've done these). Secondly it's at variance with the whole ethos of WP:IMPERFECT that underlies the existence of ARS: We do not have to plug this gap. We do not need an article on <whatever topic> by Tuesday or we'll go to press with a blank page. This is Wikipedia, not weekly newspapers. Instead we should work in an efficient, effective manner to make good articles, not to hurry ourselves and trip up by doing so. ARS exists on the WP:IMPERFECT basis that articles should be good enough and that we recognise ongoing progress to improve them, not that everything must be completed now or else deleted!
In this case, the ARS-process has gone down something of a blind alley. It hasn't even written the missing article, it has gone and created a different one altogether. Aircraft design is not the process of aircraft design! This is the sort of confusion that arises when things are rushed, and when journalism replaces structure. With the greatest respect for the hard-working and skilled editors of ARS, the notion that goood writers write well by re-working sources and without understanding the topic ___domain doesn't always work out, and this is one of those examples. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point in time we seem to be discussing the AfD of a redirect, because that is all Aircraft design process is right now. Maybe sending Aircraft design to AfD is an option, but personally, because it is an ambiguous term with at least two meanings and because the new text at that ___location is totally confused and of very poor quality because as User:Andy Dingley correctly points out it has been written in a hurry by someone who is not at all familiar with the subject area, I think it should be turned into a disambiguation page pointing to a new article on the process of designing aircraft and also aircraft design referring to the type definition documentation of an aircraft type. Unfortunately I am not sure a disambiguation page consisting of just two redlinks will wash. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm broadly happy with the state we're at now (i.e. ready to close and go home, no further changes needed). Adp redirs to Ad, Ad is an article on aircraft design (although not the process). The old boilerplate slab at Adp has gone. Although we might still wish to work on Ad and even to create a new separate article at Adp, that's for tomorrow. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aircraft design needs serious work to make it into a comprehensible article, starting with deciding what subject it is supposed to be on, but I am not at all sure that that is the correct subject for this AfD discussion at all. Perhaps we should let this AfD run its course and see if the closing admin can offer some words of wisdom on what should have been done differently and close the issue out that way? At this point we could use some objective wisdom from an uninvolved admin. - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Andy is suggesting is that we should put our feet up and take it easy while the admins move in to delete the junk and make everything neat and tidy. But let's see how this approach works in practise. What's the most important article for the aviation project? It must be Aviation, right? That article has been around for seven years so one would think it would be in good shape by now — probably a FA, right? But no, when one takes a look, one finds that it is C class. The nay-sayers would tend to call that junk too - riddled with POV, OR, all sorts of bad stuff. So should we haul that off to AFD too?
  • Now Andy's other observation is that this discussion now seems incongruous. This is not surprising because AFD is not meant for this sort of article. We know this because the relevant process says emphatically "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". The traditional slogan which is used here to convey this is that "AFD is not cleanup". And it's no good complaining about the ARS because the ARS exists precisely to address this situation - fixing up articles on notable topics so that they need not be deleted and can be put back into the production line with all the other putative FAs. If people don't like way this has worked out then like the old joke puts it when the patient says that it hurts when he does something, "Well, don't do that then!".
Colonel Warden (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Warden -- the problem isn't that you "fixed an article through normal editing" -- it's that you moved it and changed the topic! It's as if you moved Seaplane to Aircraft and rewrote it! Sure they're related, but you're talking about two different topics. And you did so without even asking for WP:CONSENSUS. I think Aircraft design process is potenially a more useful, and more managable article to write than Aircraft design. I think you've removed one bad article (which could be improved) and replaced with worse article.
I suggest that the move/editing be reverted, that Aircraft design process is reduced to the stub, and that it is allowed to grow as article normally do. I'll even start writing it you want a volunteer. But there are tons of issues with a an "Aircraft design" article that make it a much different beast to tackle. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:SidewinderX - I agree with that proposal, it is a good way to resolve the mess that has been created by taking a bad article, changing the topic and all the text to a worse article on a completely different subject. As I indicated above this is not "rescuing" an article, it was simply subverting the AfD process to make a point. - Ahunt (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original article, and I'm talking about the Sept 2009 version, is undeniably about the aircraft design process. It is dicussing the conceptual, preliminary, and detailed design phases. It discusses several aspects of aircraft design (such as propulsion and structures) in the context of the aircraft design process. It is an article about the aircraft design process. Poorly written and sourced, sure, but it was about the aircraft design process. That fact was noted soon after the article was created, and it was moved with WP:Consensus. You're right in pointing out that the article was not improved very much after the move, which wasn't good. But the only thing that needed to be changed in the lead was a to add a bold "process", the lead clearly depicts the design process.
Your move completely erased any aspect of the design process, deleting any mention of the design phases. It went from an article that described certain aspects within a context to article that discusses those aspects without any context (which is why it will be a difficult article to write and manage). It is an article on a different topic, plain and simple. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ahunt indicated at the outset of this discussion that the text of which you speak contained a substantial copyvio and so should be reduced to a stub supported by sources. The copyvio and lack of sourcing indicated that that text was not a safe basis for development. I therefore reduced the article to a stub as recommended by Ahunt and started again from consideration of good reliable sources. The sources call the topic aircraft design and that seemed simple and clear. But if you want an article which focusses exclusively upon the process then this can be done too. I shall make a stub of the title Aircraft design process and support it with good sources which will point the way to expansion of that aspect. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons to close this now are as follows:
  • It has become confused, as its basis has shifted. If there is any AfD-like issue remaining, it would be best handled by starting a new AfD / candidate for GA as needed.
  • Whatever does need doing next, this isn't the best forum for doing it.
  • There is no clear call for any further major change from where we are now, at least not within the scope of AfD. Further editing and development is of course welcome, that's just what we do.
  • There is no call to reverse any of the changes made here: i.e. anything resembling DRV or "Deforking by ArbCom" or whatever it might be called.
  • Any potential copyvio risk has now been addressed by excision of all affected content and we're safe to proceed further.
  • I'm sure we're all grateful to Colonel Warden for his efforts here.
Reasons to not close at this point might include:
  • Disagreement that we are indeed "done" yet.
  • A view that the process by which we've arrived here was so counter to policy that it has to be backed-out, rather than just proceeding forwards.
  • Disagreement with my pro-closure comments above.
However I don't see either of the following issues as reasons to continue this AfD. Whatever their appropriate response is, it's not more of this:
  • Aircraft design scope vs. Aircraft design process scope. Take it to the articles (please do - clear definitions of scope beforehand are usually helpful).
  • The ongoing need to tar and feather the members of ARS.
Unless anyone has issues related to this AfD (so speak up below), I suggest that the best thing for all of us is to close this and move forwards. Whether that involves two new AfDs or a GA nomination and barnstars all round, it's the next problem, not more of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ask that the concerms raised that the article was improperly moved during an AFD, and a C-fork created in its place, be addressed by an admin before or during the closing this AFD. Also, assuming the objections to renaming/forking are upheld, and steps taken to ensure that the user in question, who is clearly not a newbie, doesn't attempt to do this again with other AFDed articles untile they are clearly closed. That has just caused confusion that probably should not have occured. - BilCat (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's go round the houses all over again. That's useful. Not.
Whatever this was, it isn't a deliberate policy-problematic content fork. Yes, Colonel Warden shouldn't have blanked an article during the debate (that's even re-stated on the page tags) and it's a strange action for an ARS member to carry out, even though I might personally agree with it. The two articles, under their separate names, are indeed different in scope. No-one disputes this: some say they're different, CW has himself created them, so they're presumably how he wants them. Yet still, none of this is about forking or POV. They're just not an issue as far as this debate is concerned. Argue their scope outside, without the threat of deletion over them, or AfD these new articles if you think that's necessary. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deliberate or not, CW's interference in the AFD process has been disruptive. I'm sure futher AFDs will be considered, but without assurances such tactics won;t be allowed again, the same thing will probably happen again. You're free to oppose me, as you seem always do of late. - BilCat (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Bill. User:Colonel Warden has been completely successful in totally disrupting this AfD process. He has been recently cited at ANI for being disruptive on other issues as well. We now do not know which of the two articles we are even discussing, even though both of them are of very poor quality and serve only to maintain the article titles in existence. User:Colonel Warden's completely unacceptable behavior here needs to be addressed at the point that this AfD is closed, or at ANI again or at Arbcom or some other venue. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some background. I patrol AFD daily and usually participate in one or two per day. This sort of issue rarely arises because the usual basis of discussion is whether the topic is notable or not. This case is quite unusual because the notability of the topic is so great. The last case I recall which seemed similar was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loyalty - a broad topic but difficult to write upon because of its philosophical and opinionated nature. In that case, Uncle G set a good example by boldly rewriting the article. The nominator, Jimbo indicated that such bold rewrite was a good move and so it was decided. The Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard tells us that it is a long-standing custom that attempts may be made to dramatically improve articles during AFD. By all means take this to Arbcom to confirm that this is still proper. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion included some disputation as to whether the topic should be merged with the dab page or split as a separate philosophical topic. These seem to be similar structural questions to the case we have here. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, it is easy to distinguish between proposing a restructuring in an AfD (which is perfectly unexceptional) and unilaterally performing one (which is disruptive). I think the 'similarity' exists only in your head. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fixing salvagable articles is a good thing. There's no reason to delete this instead of improving it.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect to Aerospace engineering, which is woeful itself, but nowhere near as woeful as this. They amount to content forks of that article at the moment. One could theoretically imagine a separate article on Aircraft design someday, though it would be full of minutiae, if an editor with the willingness to do a thorough survey of the literature in this topic and had the sort of background to help him understand fully what he's read (and thus be able to focus on the generalizable stuff) comes along and gives it a go. A separate article on Aircraft design process is frankly absurd. The "process" of creating aircraft designs becomes less coherent, rather than more so, when divorced from the overall question of designing aircraft. The process is integral. Hiving bits of non-contextualized information into ever smaller, unwatched bits is disruptive. It leads to a thinner spread of editing resources, less focused editing on quality and more poor and generally inaccurate and/or useless articles (i.e. "Aircraft design is the design of aircraft.")Bali ultimate (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is rather silly. Aircraft design is clearly a notable topic, shown from the sources now used in the article and the myriad of available sources from a Google news and books search. Aircraft design process also looks promising in being its own valid article as well, so long as it is carefully distinguished from the former article. I don't understand the comparison with Aerospace engineering made above at all. That article has practically nothing about design or design process of aircraft and focuses far more on rocketry than aircrafts anyways. SilverserenC 21:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, as i said that article sucks too. But it's the right place for improvements to be made, not generating 3X the suckage. Of course this afd was originally about Aircraft design process before the gaming and disruption. Separating the "process" of designing aircrafts from the article on "designing" aircrafts is among the dumber thing's i've seen here, which is saying alot.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you are confusing the current state of articles with what notability is. The topic of aircraft design is clearly and overwhelmingly notable. The topic of the process of aircraft design has the potential to be notable if enough information can be gathered about it (otherwise, it should be merged into the aircraft design article). The state of either article (and aerospace engineering for that matter) has absolutely nothing to do with the notability of the topic. If you feel the articles are atrocious, then you should help improve them, but that has nothing to do with this AfD. SilverserenC 22:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • They're both inappropriate content forks. One of them, i might be convinced some day could become an appropriate fork when a high quality, lengthy section on aircraft design resides at the engineering article. The second fork should never stand; it's sublimely ridiculous.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't believe that aircraft design should be incorporated into the article on Aerospace engineering. The topics are fairly separate. What should be done is that the section in Aerospace engineering should be summarized and then direct readers to the main article on aircraft design. Furthermore, aircraft design deals with the types of designs of aircraft and the history behind it, while aircraft design process deals with the actual process of designing aircraft. They can clearly be seen as two separate things. SilverserenC 22:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The topics are fairly seperate. Wow. You have no idea what Aerospace engineering is, or what Aerospace engineers do, do you? Ok, I won't leave you in suspense. Aerospace engineers design, manage the process of construction for, and otherwise build airplanes and helicopters (and sometimes missiles and spacecraft, but far less often).Bali ultimate (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what Aerospace engineering is. But there is a huge difference between aerospace engineering, which is a branch of engineering, which is in itself a profession, and aircraft design, which is the history of how aircraft design has changed over the years and the types of major designs of aircrafts that there are. Like I said, they are fairly different. What you're proposing is akin to saying that Biomedical engineering should have the article on Biotechnology merged into it. SilverserenC 02:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(i) I see no "History of" in either article's title (and Aerospace engineering explicitly includes "the design ... of aircraft"). (ii) Any historical material can adequately be contained in Aerospace engineering#History (to the extent that it's not already covered in Aviation history). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When all is said and done, and all the intervening bickering is ignored, we have an article which is soundly referenced, and which clearly is on a notable subject. Quibbling over names belongs on the article talk page - and is not, in itself, grounds for deletion. Collect (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aircraft_design&oldid=1264337880"