Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twinjet

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. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twinjet

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

no sources Timothy Robinson12345 (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Twin-engine aircraft as I can't find any evidence that they're ever officially referred to as "twinjets". Please don't PROD/AfD "common knowledge" articles, find the sources of that common knowledge or submit it to relevant project pages instead. This was clearly written by someone with aviation knowledge but a poor understanding of Wikipedia's citation policy. Jergling (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Alternatively, rename to Twin-engine jet aircraft or something to keep it specific to jets) Jergling (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I do see that Trijet does exist, mirroring this naming structure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources have been added. Sources do exist regardless of whether they're on the article or not. A move to a new article name doesn't require an Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: Just for the record, I added those sources and consider them relatively weak. They loosely confirm the two main claims of redundancy and efficiency. "Trijet" appears to be industry vernacular, unlike "Twinjet", but I am not an expert. Jergling (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see, well another option is to redirect and selectively merge to Jet airliner itself, maybe. Which is not overly long and seems to mainly discuss aircraft by decade rather than configuration. But again, a merge doesn't require an Afd either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources have been added. - BilCat (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still needs considerable work and referencing, but I have no doubt it could be improved. I don't agree with merge/redirect to Jet airliner because that article is about passenger aircraft only. This article covers the design of two-engine jets of all types (small, military, cargo, etc.) I also note that there are dozens of incoming links to twinjet from other WP articles so it should probably stay at the current title. MB 16:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Widefox; talk 11:59, 29 November 2016 (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.