Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boomerang engineer

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. Shereth 19:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang engineer

A Google search shows that this term appears to be idiosyncratic, with the only sources being from Wikipedia itself. The article is completely unsourced. I suggest that we Merge any verifiable material (if any) to Boomerang, then Delete. The Anome (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is simply not true, if one were to just google boomerang engineer, it would be plain to see. User:Pedant (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Merge and delete violates GFDL. So do one or the other, but not both. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems to be chiefly concerned with the aerodynamic properties of boomerangs, and as such is redundant. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang engineering is chiefly concerned with the aerodynamic properties of boomerangs. I don't think we have Aerodynamic properties of boomerangs do we? User:Pedant (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd a thunk boomerangs were more or less defined by their aerodynamic properties; that's what makes them boomerangs, and not, say, sticks. That said, I do think that Rusty Harding probably was deleted somewhat hastily. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:CORP Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how WP:CORP applies to this article. User:Pedant (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this totally improbable specialization. Throw it away (and hope it doesn't return). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is so improbable about engineering boomerangs? Have you ever flown one and wondered why it didn't come back? If it did come back, do you think that was accidental, or a feature engineered into the device? User:Pedant (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, nobody makes a living as one and no university offers a degree in Boomerang Engineering. By your own admission, it's a nickname for one person, so why do we need an article about it? Should we also have Dr. J. for Julius Erving? Washing machine engineer? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Rusty Harding and Bunny Burwell make a living at it, right off the top of my head. Not all of them approach boomerang engineering in the methodical and scientific way that Rusty Harding does -- but there are at least a few hundred innovative builders whom I would call boomerang engineers. Vanderbilt University had Rusty Harding teach a class on it, and dozens of engineering institutions teach gyroscopics; precession; airfoil cross-section -- and all the other elements of boomerang engineering. It's not as common and widely understood as, say, rocket science, but it is definitely legitimate engineering. Not to debate you, since neither one of us knows enough to discuss it authoritatively, but the information is there, especially if you don't constrain your concept of 'legitimate information' as being just what you see on the front page of a hasty google search. User:Pedant (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a spinoff from the Rusty Harding article, Rusty Harding aka Richard Englert is a former aerospace engineer who worked on Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, as well as designing flight control systems and hydraulics for military and commercial aircraft. He used his engineering experience to design boomerangs with specialised flight characteristics, and to create returning boomerangs in a variety of unlikely-looking shapes. In the boomerang community, he is known as "the boomerang engineer". Without any mention of Rusty Harding/Richard Englert, the article doesn't have much relevance, since as far as I know, nobody else applies advanced aerodynamic principles to boomerangs. And Rusty is apparently not making many boomerangs any more, so maybe we can just say boomerang engineers don't exist, and get rid of the article that inconveniently mentions them. I guess it's just not as important or encyclopedic of a topic as, say, the crufty Bajoran Wormhole; the obscure and useless LED Throwies; a linklist article like Stunt pogo... I vote keep and reinstate the deleted Rusty Harding-related material or move it back to Rusty Harding where it belongs.

See:

[1] (10 thousand google hits for Rusty Harding boomerangs);

[2] ("Rusty Harding, a retired American aerospace engineer and an avid boomerang fan, once mused that there are more variables in the flight of a boomerang than there are in a spaceship's flight to the moon. Some of these variables can be easily understood using scientific principles.");

[3] (Tomahawk boomerang made by boomerang legend Rusty Harding.); [4] ("admiral’s hat A variation on the omega shape, as named and popularised by models by Australian Bunny Read and American Rusty Harding");

[5] ("There should be multiple boomerang-related events occurring simultaneously, so that spectators and competitors alike are ALWAYS occupied with something, whether it be a competition, workshop, craft show, lecture, meeting, story by Rusty Harding... anything boomerang-related. This could be the way to make boomerang tournaments into spectator-friendly events and lead the sport into the 21st century.");

[6] ; [7] ("The highlight of the third and final week of the class will be the session on boomerangs, Burton predicted. This will be taught by veteran aerospace engineer Rusty Harding. Harding worked closely with Werner von Braun on the design and construction of rockets for the U.S. space program, from before the Apollo Program through development of the space shuttle. Harding will talk about his experiences in the space program, show the students his collection of authentic aboriginal boomerangs, and explain the basic aerodynamic design principles involved. Under his tutelage, the students will build their own boomerangs and test-fly them on Curry Field in front of Wilson Hall.") ...

172,000 google hits for boomerang engineer; [8] (aerospace engineers contest: build a returning boomerang);

[9] (Japanese astronaut tests boomerang at ISS, in free fall orbit, a boomerang engineer predicted it would return correctly, 30 years earlier. Takao Doi gives empirical evidence that Rusthy Harding was right).

Theres's a wealth of info just from google, or read the Klutz book on boomerangs, or ask any boomerangianiac or whatever they call themselves these days.

Rusty Harding shouldn't have been deletionisted, and neither should this article. Stubs should be expanded not deleted. User:Pedant (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given your comments above, I've put Rusty Harding up for the Wikipedia:Deletion review process: see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_7. I still believe that Boomerang engineer should be deleted, since it looks like most of the material in the Boomerang engineer article either belongs in the main Boomerang article or in (were it to be restored) the Rusty Harding article, since the only use of the term "boomerang engineer" seems to be to refer to him. -- The Anome (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... that seems at first to be a good idea, but I think we should skip the deletion review, it was deleted twice and I trust my fellow editors to make competent decisions in such matters. Let's just leave it deleted and I will thoroughly rewrite it in such a way that it won't crave deletion. User:Pedant (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question How was an article on Rusty Harding deleted? Or why? Doesn't anyone bother to check whether the subject of an article is notable before deleting? There's no benefit to Wikipedia to delete perfectly notable biographies from the encyclopedia. People can't edit them. They still turn up cached in google searches. It seems like a lose lose situation. --Blechnic (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS They're often called fine woodworkers or craftsmen rather than engineers, in my experience. But I'd grant a fine boomerang maker an engineering degree. There is nothing finer than to throw a beautifully hand-crafted boomerang made by an artist as skilled as Harding. --Blechnic (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2008 (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.