Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atol (aircraft)

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. A fine line between "keep" and "no consensus". The policy-based argument that this is a unique aircraft, and thus meets notability (and the associated Janes entry) moves me to Keep (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atol (aircraft)

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

Originally nominated for speedy as G11, but declined. No notability for this one type of aircraft; the author de-proded after adding "reliable sources" from youtube, the manufacturer's website and a few databases etc. There aren't any other sources and so fails WP:GNG. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources included a wikipedia page, the Finnish aviation museums website and the Finnish flying associations website. As I stated earlier, I will continue to develop the page and I will make it compliant with wikipedias rules. If you tell me what I must change then I will change it. Matiasko (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources you're trying to use establish notability. I'll deal with them one-by-one.
  1. The wikipedia article on the [Finnish Aviation Museum] - First, read WP:CIRCULAR. In this case it truly is absurd as the article you're using is itself unreferenced, and so anyone could've just made it up. In addition it only makes a passing mention of the subject, which does not satisfy the general notability guideline.
  2. The flyfinland website - this doesn't establish notability because it's just a database entry, and so doesn't constitute the "significant coverage" required by GNG.
  3. The ilmailuliitto website - same problem as above; just a passing mention.
  4. The final source is the only one which seems appropriate, and it's a short non-English source. More is needed than just this alone to establish notability.
- Overall, you seem to be confused over the standard needed for inclusion in wikipedia. Simple truth or existence is not enough (or I would write an article about my left thumb). Subjects of articles have to be notable. Please see WP:N. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is NOT the issue. All aircraft have inherent notability!!! The issue is the source or sources of the information. Please confine assessment for deletion to the relevant criteria!!Petebutt (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I must agree with Petebutt, notability shouldn't be an issue when talking about any aircraft. Wikipedia has several articles about all kinds of aircraft so why should the Atol not be included into the database? And the source being non-English isn't an issue either, there are several Wikipedia articles with references to non-English sources. What I ultimately want to say is please don't just hastily delete my article, but help me to improve it. Matiasko (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Nothing is inherently notable. However, WP:Notability (aircraft) suggests that verifiably distinct "types" of aircraft are generally notable, with emphasis on the "verifiably". This isn't my area, so I'm not going to !vote, but if Atol 495 has been recognised as a distinct "type" of aircraft, that's what you need to establish through reliable sources. Claiming notability without providing any evidence won't help your argument. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the comment DoctorKubla, and thank you for showing this to me WP:Notability (aircraft). It would appear that the Atol 495 meets the required criteria under "types" Notability (aircraft),type atleast in "types" sections 2. (it is type certified under Finnish aviation authorities) and 7. (it is being sold commercially). The claim on section 7. can easily be verified by going to the manufacturers site: www.atol.fi/en Matiasko (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it seems to be mentioned in All the World's Aircraft as well ([1]), though snippet view isn't good enough for verification purposes. If you can get hold of a copy, it could be the evidence you need. Bear in mind, though, that WP:Notability (aircraft) is only an essay, not a guideline, so the article could still be deleted. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While sources are sketchy, the Jane's reference (which shows more on the gBooks search page, sufficent to establish that the aircraft is, in fact, included) is sufficient to verify, via a reliable source, that this is a distinct and unique type of aircraft. Sources need not be in the article, only available, and this is so. The article desperatly needs a mop taken to it, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added two separate literary sources (both of them are in English) to the article. That should end the discussion on notability. And could someone redirect the Jan Bodin's book as a reference to the development section? Yet again, my wikipedia newbieness is showing itself... Matiasko (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:45, 24 June 2012 (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.