- 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 Monoplane. Sandstein 16:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Parasol wing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Design_configuration_articles Claim of "consensus" between just two editors, not even noted on the articles affected, is no reason to start deleting articles by blanking. Especially not on obviously notable topics (this hasn't ever been challenged). Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strong keep This is a notable sub-form of the monoplane wing. It has a recorded history of its own, it has a timespan of relevance that doesn't even overlap much with the non-parasol cantilever monoplanes (for technical reasons, parasol monoplanes were largely contemporaneous with biplanes, then replaced by the now familiar cantilever monoplane). Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Why don't you discuss instead of nominating this for deletion and then !voting keep? This approach seems a bit too WP:POINT. - Ahunt ( talk) 19:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I can't imagine. Maybe because of the way your idea of
WP:BRD after this article was restored was to
immediately blank it again. Discussion? Do you speak it?
Andy Dingley (
talk) 20:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - Yes indeed, we were already having that discussion and in fact you just joined in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Design_configuration_articles. For the record I didn't "blank" it, I redirected it. Not the same thing. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nominating for deletion but then voting the other way is clearly perverse. This conversation is already under way at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Design_configuration_articles, why duplicate it like this? When I saw the nomination I assumed a change of heart. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 19:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- On the "timespan of relevance" mentioned: Yes it had a brief vogue, but the encyclopedic significance of that can be summed up in a short section - which is already at
monoplane. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk) 08:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- A "brief vogue"? Maybe against the "sticks and wire" biplanes, but it's also popular into the 1940s for seaplanes, has a resurgence in the '70s-'90s for microlights and has even been studied by NASA for recovery after re-entry (As a parasol wing supports the fuselage almost entirely in tension, it's easier to make it fold for storage).
Andy Dingley (
talk) 10:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- And that's my point. You've said just about all that is to be said. Each of these cases is quite unrelated to the others both technically and historically, and each needs treating in its own article, where it can be presented in the context of the other designs used for the same purpose. All we need to pull them together is a summary section with a few links. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk) 14:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- So "parasol wing" isn't notable, but "parasol wing (only as applied to 1930s seaplanes)" is?
Andy Dingley (
talk) 15:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- You raised that query in the original discussion and in my reply I quoted the relevant passage from WP:NOTABILITY for you. Notability is a necessary condition for a standalone article but it is not a sufficient one. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 15:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- To illustrate using your example, the choice of a given wing type for a seaplane depends on the demands of the job and the technologies available. The various wing types used, and why, is a significant discussion but it is not relevant to a summary of any given wing type, beyond a quick one-liner and a link. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- So "parasol wing" isn't notable, but "parasol wing (only as applied to 1930s seaplanes)" is?
Andy Dingley (
talk) 15:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- And that's my point. You've said just about all that is to be said. Each of these cases is quite unrelated to the others both technically and historically, and each needs treating in its own article, where it can be presented in the context of the other designs used for the same purpose. All we need to pull them together is a summary section with a few links. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk) 14:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- A "brief vogue"? Maybe against the "sticks and wire" biplanes, but it's also popular into the 1940s for seaplanes, has a resurgence in the '70s-'90s for microlights and has even been studied by NASA for recovery after re-entry (As a parasol wing supports the fuselage almost entirely in tension, it's easier to make it fold for storage).
Andy Dingley (
talk) 10:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strong redirect. There is little notable or significant about this topic that is not already said in the relevant section of the Monoplane article. Yes, the parasol wing has a history and was briefly fashionable, but there is not enough to sustain any kind of structured discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 19:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect - to Monoplane. The subject is already covered here and the current article is little more than a dictionary definition. See the policy on this at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It makes much more sense to consolidate all wing locations at monoplane and redirect. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that something is a dictionary definition is no reason to assume that it can only be a dictionary definition.
Cheese and
volcano are both in the dictionary, yet you'd not suggest they don't belong in an encyclopedia too.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 20:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - the article has existed for 11 years and has been pretty stable for a long time. There doesn't seem to be a lot more that anyone thinks should be added. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- 8 years is too short to judge articles when editors are sparse. Maybe once a year a qualified editor passes by such a niche article, sees something he can improve, but feels other topics deserve his time better. So nothing happens. But merging several small articles might attract more editors, and after maybe 10 more years some sections might have grown to be spawned - improving both parent and spawn article. Article notability and editor interest is not the same.
TGCP (
talk) 23:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just what does this sort of "stomp the stubs" approach do to encourage other editors? There are plenty of editors competent to work on this, but what's the point in doing anything constructive against such organised resistance?
Andy Dingley (
talk) 23:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- It depends on how you look at it. It's the content that matters, not the placement. The slow growth seems to indicate that editors are not interested, but if content is included in a bigger article, more editors might view and edit this content, particularly when contrasted with content of other wingforms right nearby.
TGCP (
talk) 23:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's hardly convincing though when the much broader scope of monoplane has still only generated an article that's proportionately less developed.
- We have a whole bunch of policy and practice, from WP:IMPERFECT onwards, that recognises the long-term nature of such a project and that it both can't be rushed and also needs encouragement. This sort of blanking runs directly counter to this, and the aims of the project. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- It depends on how you look at it. It's the content that matters, not the placement. The slow growth seems to indicate that editors are not interested, but if content is included in a bigger article, more editors might view and edit this content, particularly when contrasted with content of other wingforms right nearby.
TGCP (
talk) 23:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just what does this sort of "stomp the stubs" approach do to encourage other editors? There are plenty of editors competent to work on this, but what's the point in doing anything constructive against such organised resistance?
Andy Dingley (
talk) 23:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that something is a dictionary definition is no reason to assume that it can only be a dictionary definition.
Cheese and
volcano are both in the dictionary, yet you'd not suggest they don't belong in an encyclopedia too.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 20:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect with content - to Monoplane now, spawn to Parasol wing when Monoplane has enough content. There is a lot of PW content (although more could be made) considering how few there are, and how many non-PW monoplanes the world has now. As soon as other content starts to fill Monoplane article, PW content should be spawned out to Parasol wing again so it doesn't clutter the main article. TGCP ( talk) 20:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
-
Monoplane has been there for 13 years and hasn't managed to grow past 8k in size for a pretty big topic. Per Ahunt's argument above, "There doesn't seem to be a lot more that anyone thinks should be added." So why merge parasol wing to an article that's in an even weaker state?
Andy Dingley (
talk) 21:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - Well merging stubs like this one into it would certainly achieve that, hence the consensus to do just that. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Monoplane is far the stronger article, claiming the opposite is just perverse. I already merged in the viable content from parasol wing some days ago. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 21:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
-
Monoplane has been there for 13 years and hasn't managed to grow past 8k in size for a pretty big topic. Per Ahunt's argument above, "There doesn't seem to be a lot more that anyone thinks should be added." So why merge parasol wing to an article that's in an even weaker state?
Andy Dingley (
talk) 21:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:35, 9 October 2015 (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 Monoplane. Sandstein 16:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Parasol wing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Design_configuration_articles Claim of "consensus" between just two editors, not even noted on the articles affected, is no reason to start deleting articles by blanking. Especially not on obviously notable topics (this hasn't ever been challenged). Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strong keep This is a notable sub-form of the monoplane wing. It has a recorded history of its own, it has a timespan of relevance that doesn't even overlap much with the non-parasol cantilever monoplanes (for technical reasons, parasol monoplanes were largely contemporaneous with biplanes, then replaced by the now familiar cantilever monoplane). Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Why don't you discuss instead of nominating this for deletion and then !voting keep? This approach seems a bit too WP:POINT. - Ahunt ( talk) 19:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I can't imagine. Maybe because of the way your idea of
WP:BRD after this article was restored was to
immediately blank it again. Discussion? Do you speak it?
Andy Dingley (
talk) 20:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - Yes indeed, we were already having that discussion and in fact you just joined in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Design_configuration_articles. For the record I didn't "blank" it, I redirected it. Not the same thing. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nominating for deletion but then voting the other way is clearly perverse. This conversation is already under way at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Design_configuration_articles, why duplicate it like this? When I saw the nomination I assumed a change of heart. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 19:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- On the "timespan of relevance" mentioned: Yes it had a brief vogue, but the encyclopedic significance of that can be summed up in a short section - which is already at
monoplane. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk) 08:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- A "brief vogue"? Maybe against the "sticks and wire" biplanes, but it's also popular into the 1940s for seaplanes, has a resurgence in the '70s-'90s for microlights and has even been studied by NASA for recovery after re-entry (As a parasol wing supports the fuselage almost entirely in tension, it's easier to make it fold for storage).
Andy Dingley (
talk) 10:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- And that's my point. You've said just about all that is to be said. Each of these cases is quite unrelated to the others both technically and historically, and each needs treating in its own article, where it can be presented in the context of the other designs used for the same purpose. All we need to pull them together is a summary section with a few links. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk) 14:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- So "parasol wing" isn't notable, but "parasol wing (only as applied to 1930s seaplanes)" is?
Andy Dingley (
talk) 15:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- You raised that query in the original discussion and in my reply I quoted the relevant passage from WP:NOTABILITY for you. Notability is a necessary condition for a standalone article but it is not a sufficient one. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 15:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- To illustrate using your example, the choice of a given wing type for a seaplane depends on the demands of the job and the technologies available. The various wing types used, and why, is a significant discussion but it is not relevant to a summary of any given wing type, beyond a quick one-liner and a link. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- So "parasol wing" isn't notable, but "parasol wing (only as applied to 1930s seaplanes)" is?
Andy Dingley (
talk) 15:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- And that's my point. You've said just about all that is to be said. Each of these cases is quite unrelated to the others both technically and historically, and each needs treating in its own article, where it can be presented in the context of the other designs used for the same purpose. All we need to pull them together is a summary section with a few links. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk) 14:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- A "brief vogue"? Maybe against the "sticks and wire" biplanes, but it's also popular into the 1940s for seaplanes, has a resurgence in the '70s-'90s for microlights and has even been studied by NASA for recovery after re-entry (As a parasol wing supports the fuselage almost entirely in tension, it's easier to make it fold for storage).
Andy Dingley (
talk) 10:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strong redirect. There is little notable or significant about this topic that is not already said in the relevant section of the Monoplane article. Yes, the parasol wing has a history and was briefly fashionable, but there is not enough to sustain any kind of structured discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 19:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect - to Monoplane. The subject is already covered here and the current article is little more than a dictionary definition. See the policy on this at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It makes much more sense to consolidate all wing locations at monoplane and redirect. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that something is a dictionary definition is no reason to assume that it can only be a dictionary definition.
Cheese and
volcano are both in the dictionary, yet you'd not suggest they don't belong in an encyclopedia too.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 20:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - the article has existed for 11 years and has been pretty stable for a long time. There doesn't seem to be a lot more that anyone thinks should be added. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- 8 years is too short to judge articles when editors are sparse. Maybe once a year a qualified editor passes by such a niche article, sees something he can improve, but feels other topics deserve his time better. So nothing happens. But merging several small articles might attract more editors, and after maybe 10 more years some sections might have grown to be spawned - improving both parent and spawn article. Article notability and editor interest is not the same.
TGCP (
talk) 23:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just what does this sort of "stomp the stubs" approach do to encourage other editors? There are plenty of editors competent to work on this, but what's the point in doing anything constructive against such organised resistance?
Andy Dingley (
talk) 23:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- It depends on how you look at it. It's the content that matters, not the placement. The slow growth seems to indicate that editors are not interested, but if content is included in a bigger article, more editors might view and edit this content, particularly when contrasted with content of other wingforms right nearby.
TGCP (
talk) 23:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's hardly convincing though when the much broader scope of monoplane has still only generated an article that's proportionately less developed.
- We have a whole bunch of policy and practice, from WP:IMPERFECT onwards, that recognises the long-term nature of such a project and that it both can't be rushed and also needs encouragement. This sort of blanking runs directly counter to this, and the aims of the project. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- It depends on how you look at it. It's the content that matters, not the placement. The slow growth seems to indicate that editors are not interested, but if content is included in a bigger article, more editors might view and edit this content, particularly when contrasted with content of other wingforms right nearby.
TGCP (
talk) 23:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just what does this sort of "stomp the stubs" approach do to encourage other editors? There are plenty of editors competent to work on this, but what's the point in doing anything constructive against such organised resistance?
Andy Dingley (
talk) 23:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that something is a dictionary definition is no reason to assume that it can only be a dictionary definition.
Cheese and
volcano are both in the dictionary, yet you'd not suggest they don't belong in an encyclopedia too.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 20:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect with content - to Monoplane now, spawn to Parasol wing when Monoplane has enough content. There is a lot of PW content (although more could be made) considering how few there are, and how many non-PW monoplanes the world has now. As soon as other content starts to fill Monoplane article, PW content should be spawned out to Parasol wing again so it doesn't clutter the main article. TGCP ( talk) 20:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
-
Monoplane has been there for 13 years and hasn't managed to grow past 8k in size for a pretty big topic. Per Ahunt's argument above, "There doesn't seem to be a lot more that anyone thinks should be added." So why merge parasol wing to an article that's in an even weaker state?
Andy Dingley (
talk) 21:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - Well merging stubs like this one into it would certainly achieve that, hence the consensus to do just that. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Monoplane is far the stronger article, claiming the opposite is just perverse. I already merged in the viable content from parasol wing some days ago. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 21:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
-
Monoplane has been there for 13 years and hasn't managed to grow past 8k in size for a pretty big topic. Per Ahunt's argument above, "There doesn't seem to be a lot more that anyone thinks should be added." So why merge parasol wing to an article that's in an even weaker state?
Andy Dingley (
talk) 21:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:35, 9 October 2015 (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.