Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bede Wing

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bede Wing

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

Interesting, but I can find no coverage in reliable sources via a google search. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party coverage, no very reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 18:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the standard reliable source for this sort of subject which will determine notability or not is Janes All The World's Aircraft. If someone has access to this for the appropriate years in question can they confirm whether there are entries for this or not? - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I assume Popular Science counts as both third-party and reliable? I'll see what I can dig up at the library tomorrow, also. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now has reliable ref added, establishing notability. - Ahunt (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is a one paragraph blurb that reads like a press release significant coverage? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More references have been found and added. If anybody can get Volume 23 of Sport Aviation magazine, there's an article in it that isn't cited fully in Google Books... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 17:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking more promising, can you provide a link to the partial article in google? How much detail does the Air Facts: the magazine of safe flying have? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Google Books page. Both the EAA mag and the Air Facts entry are 'snippet views', and the Sport Aviation one won't even show properly for some reason. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Had coverage in Popular Science and elsewhere back in the day. Dream Focus 05:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, while I am cautiously optimistic that this article can be well sourced, I'm not sure it has been yet. The blurb in Popular Science is just that. The snippet views from Google books suggest that there is significant coverage, but has anyone gotten access to those sources in full? Can we assess notability from small snippets alone? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chatter 23:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google Books link above immediately produces numerous sources. There seems to be something wrong with the nominator's search technique. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's a anything wrong with my mad google skilz on this subject--the problem I am having with the notion of keeping this article is that as far as I know, no one has access to any of the sources in there entirety beyond the blurb in popular science. I've asked for details about the source, and no one has been forth coming. The google search shows that reliable sources have at least touched upon the subject, but whether they have done more than a passing mention or the equivalent of a press release announcing the product, or provided the requisite significant coverage is, to me at least, completely unknown. There are five sources in the google search, and I have no access to anything more than very brief snippets. One of the five has no information on the subject. The Kites book from 2000 appears to me to be a picture caption, but I can see only a small portion of the representation of the page. The other three appear to me to be the pre-product announcements, similar to press releases, and like the Popular Science blurb, but perhaps there is more there in the actual sources. So I'll ask more bluntly--has anyone obtained access to any of the articles in its entirety? If not, do we not require that someone somewhere have access to the complete text of at least one of sources used in an article, at least at some point in time? I am perfectly happy to assume good faith if anyone says "yes, I have read the article X and it is good" --Nuujinn (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We all have access the Kites book, which, for example, can be purchased for as little as $1.46. I've seen enough of it online to see that the topic has been noticed and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. We are not here to perform this editing in detail. We just establish that there is a reasonable prospect of improving the article in accordance with our editing policy. If you want to be operating at a higher level of content evaluation, then please try GA or FA review. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden, thank you for the link to the kites book for purchase. I see your point, but still find myself in disagreement with you, since I feel that the meager text of the partial views afforded us at this point suggest that the subject is unusual, but not notable, in that it lacks significant coverage. My suggest is that the text of this article be removed to the article on Bede as a subsection, and that this article be redirected there until such time as we have a better grasp of acutal sources (unless anyone has read one or more of these in their entirety and can voach for them). --Nuujinn (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our editing policy to remove articles while they are under development. The whole idea of a Wiki is that we keep imperfect drafts in mainspace where editors can find them and work upon them. If we deleted articles while we wait for sources or other input then we would not get anything done. Wikipedia was created precisely because the perfectionist approach of Nupedia did not work. Wikipedia works because we tolerate imperfection and this includes articles without any sources at all - there are thousands of them. We have reasonable evidence that there are multiple books which discuss this topic in detail and that's all we need. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few more Google Books snippets here. And I am going to try and get some of these sources via interlibrary loan to improve this article. So I strongly oppose deletion or merger. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are reassuring, since it seems that there's coverage for a few years, and they do not appear to be mere press releases. I'm convinced by those additions that we have enough potential for an article, but I am still concerned that we're not working from complete versions of sources, I suppose it is the pedantic old academic in me. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:38, 17 October 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.