Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triangle control frame

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle control frame

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

Not useful.

This page is a bit (extremely) unfocused. I left a comment for the article's author nearly two years ago ... and the focus of the article has not improved.

The general category is flight control systems. There is an existing article on Aircraft flight control system. Weight-shift controls are a specific sort of flight control (and the FAA uses this term extensively on their site and in their publications). From an engineering perspective, using weight-shift as a means of flight control (mainly used for smaller/simpler craft) is particularly clever, and worth mention.

The particular shape of the structural member grasped by the pilot (in the case of small craft) is not really significant. You could use an inverted-"T", bent-"L" - or many other shapes - for the same exact purpose (and many shapes have indeed seen use).

At this moment, the article for Weight-shift control redirects to Ultralight trike ... an instance of use of weight-shift control, but by no means the entire category.

I believe the best course of action is:

Expand the Weight-shift control article, removing the redirect, and using some content from this article.
Add a reference from Aircraft flight control system to Weight-shift control.
Remove this article.

(Could just add to the Aircraft flight control system article, but I suspect that would tend to make the article too long and less focused.)

pbannister (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as there's no valid argument for deletion. See: WP:ATA. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The nominator is advocating the re-use of some of this material to develop a weight-shift control article. I applaud that. But that does not requires deletion, and if as proposed, material from this article is used, then the attribution history needs to be kept by merging and then redirecting to the new article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 3 June 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.