Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Required Navigation Performance

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 of the debate was keep. Angr (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Required Navigation Performance

Delete. Doesn't really seem to be enough subject for an article. Maybe transfer to Wiktionary? Wickethewok 09:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as technical dicdef, probably unsuited to Wiktionary. Sandstein 13:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Keep per changes and discussion below. Sandstein 18:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a dicdef right now, but RNP is an important new airline precision landing/navigation technique. It's essentially the new replacement for Instrument Landing System for high precision approaches. It's gotten several mentions in Aviation Week & Space Technology in the last few months. You clearly can't tell any of this from the existing article, but someone should upgrade it rather than nuke it. If it survives AfD, I'll work on it in my spare cycles. If not, I'll see about building it in a sandbox and then recreating with adequate content once it's ready to go. Georgewilliamherbert 23:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Angr (talk • contribs) 12:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect. The above comments suggest a merger to Instrument Landing System, but this [1] article seems to explain that RNP relates principally to inflight navagtion rather than landing, in which a case merger elsewhere may be more appropriate. Kcordina ^Talk 12:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Change of vote in view of comments below and amendments to the article. Kcordina ^Talk 15:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mind-bogglingly strong keep. I can see why somebody not familiar with aviation would read the original article and not see the significance, but this is a major new concept which is changing the face of global air traffic control. Merging with ILS would be completely inappropriate. I've added some material. The article still needs work, but it's an interesting topic, well deserving of an article. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RNP is a completely new way of defining the required airspace around a particular aeroplane, permitting greatly increased numbers of planes in any air corridor (etc.). It will have a very significant impact on air travel. Sliggy 15:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:RoySmith and User:Sliggy. --E lkman - ^(talk) 16:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to recent additions to article. Wickethewok 17:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 20:44, 22 March 2006 (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.