- 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 redirect to V speeds#Regulatory V-speeds. With the caveat that expansion into a proper article with sources is still allowed. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Overspeed (aeronautics)
- Overspeed (aeronautics) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This so-called "article" escapes speedy deletion criteria by a hair! In essence, this article says nothing more than "overspeed is too much speed". It consists of:
- a dictionary definition (violation of WP:NOT#DICT)
- one line of advice (violation of WP:NOTADVICE)
- five lines of patent nonsense
If it said anything more, we could have merged it into ... well, there are a lot of candidates. Codename Lisa ( talk) 05:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 05:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to V speeds#Regulatory V-speeds, where it is mentioned. While severely underdeveloped, the article makes sense. The five lines are a starting list of what are termed V speeds. Overspeed itself is a standard concept in aircraft operation [1] and commercial aircraft have an audible overspeed alarm when Vmo, the maximum operating speed, is exceeded. Because an overspeed alarm condition is defined relative to a particular aircraft's Vmo (and Mmo, the Mach equivalent), redirecting to the V speed article provides the best context for readers. It is conceivable the topic could be expanded beyond a mention, in say flight envelope, but redirect is best option until that happens. -- Mark viking ( talk) 11:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Judging from what you said, the first line (advice-like) is VNE, the second is VFC, the third is VMO, the fourth is VFE, the fifth is VLE and the last is VLO. So, it is basically category-2 patent nonsense, not category-1. Thanks for explanation. — Codename Lisa ( talk) 12:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I did not realize that patent nonsense had been categorized. Thank you in turn for the link. -- Mark viking ( talk) 17:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe I should stop saying "category-2 patent nonsense" and say "Content that apparently intended to mean something but don't". — Codename Lisa ( talk) 06:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect - Per Mark. GMG talk 14:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The topic is notable -- for example, see Flying Magazine for extensive details of what happens if you go overspeed in a Learjet. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Andrew D. ( talk) 12:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect as per Mark viking, who seems to have some knowledge of the topic. If Andrew Davidson wants to improve the article, I may change my vote, but there is no content that should be kept at present. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect (nom), per Mark viking. Yes, I am the nominator, but I agree with the reasonable idea of one of the participants; that's all. — Codename Lisa ( talk) 06:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, but expand. Review in 120 days. It is a notable concept (for example, Flying Magazine). Give the author(s) of the article 120 days to expand the article. If it is not expanded, delete it as per WP:NOT#DICT. desmay ( talk) 18:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Rederect Per Mark viking. - ZLEA (Talk, Contribs) 21:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 redirect to V speeds#Regulatory V-speeds. With the caveat that expansion into a proper article with sources is still allowed. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Overspeed (aeronautics)
- Overspeed (aeronautics) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This so-called "article" escapes speedy deletion criteria by a hair! In essence, this article says nothing more than "overspeed is too much speed". It consists of:
- a dictionary definition (violation of WP:NOT#DICT)
- one line of advice (violation of WP:NOTADVICE)
- five lines of patent nonsense
If it said anything more, we could have merged it into ... well, there are a lot of candidates. Codename Lisa ( talk) 05:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 05:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to V speeds#Regulatory V-speeds, where it is mentioned. While severely underdeveloped, the article makes sense. The five lines are a starting list of what are termed V speeds. Overspeed itself is a standard concept in aircraft operation [1] and commercial aircraft have an audible overspeed alarm when Vmo, the maximum operating speed, is exceeded. Because an overspeed alarm condition is defined relative to a particular aircraft's Vmo (and Mmo, the Mach equivalent), redirecting to the V speed article provides the best context for readers. It is conceivable the topic could be expanded beyond a mention, in say flight envelope, but redirect is best option until that happens. -- Mark viking ( talk) 11:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Judging from what you said, the first line (advice-like) is VNE, the second is VFC, the third is VMO, the fourth is VFE, the fifth is VLE and the last is VLO. So, it is basically category-2 patent nonsense, not category-1. Thanks for explanation. — Codename Lisa ( talk) 12:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I did not realize that patent nonsense had been categorized. Thank you in turn for the link. -- Mark viking ( talk) 17:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe I should stop saying "category-2 patent nonsense" and say "Content that apparently intended to mean something but don't". — Codename Lisa ( talk) 06:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect - Per Mark. GMG talk 14:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The topic is notable -- for example, see Flying Magazine for extensive details of what happens if you go overspeed in a Learjet. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Andrew D. ( talk) 12:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect as per Mark viking, who seems to have some knowledge of the topic. If Andrew Davidson wants to improve the article, I may change my vote, but there is no content that should be kept at present. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect (nom), per Mark viking. Yes, I am the nominator, but I agree with the reasonable idea of one of the participants; that's all. — Codename Lisa ( talk) 06:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, but expand. Review in 120 days. It is a notable concept (for example, Flying Magazine). Give the author(s) of the article 120 days to expand the article. If it is not expanded, delete it as per WP:NOT#DICT. desmay ( talk) 18:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Rederect Per Mark viking. - ZLEA (Talk, Contribs) 21:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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.