- 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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Transall
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Transall ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The page fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and shows an inconsistent approach to aircraft manufacturing consortia. Transall was a single product consortium to produce the Transall C-160. As a consortium, it was an unincorporated commercial arrangement and not a separate legal entity. Unlike Eurofighter GmbH, Panavia Aircraft GmbH and SEPECAT which were separate legal entities, we don't have separate pages for unincorporated aircraft consortia such as the Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet construction agreement and the Concorde construction agreement, I don't see why Transall should be treated differently just because they came up with a name. The Transall page recently has been pumped up with information about the Transall C-160 unrelated to the entity as there is so little information about Transall separate from its sole product. All the information about the consortium can easily be covered in one paragraph on the Transall C-160 page and in fact it already exists there. Mztourist ( talk) 06:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 06:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 06:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
OpposeKeep - Article clearly meets WP:GNG, having significant coverage in several aviation periodicals and books. Please note the article has existed as a stub for nearly 14 years, but was only put up for deletion after recent expansion. - BilCat ( talk) 07:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)- Transall C-160 has WP:SIGCOV, Transall doesn't. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Article age Mztourist ( talk) 07:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Whether or not it currently has sufficient material for an article is also no grounds for deletion - the real question, is enough material available? I suspect the answer is yes, because outside of its development of the aircraft there must have been sufficient politics involved to write an article about. The non-existence of other similar articles is likewise not an argument against the existence of this article. It just means those ones may also need to be written.
- NiD.29 (
talk) 07:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:But there must be sources! Mztourist ( talk) 08:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comments - As the nominator failed to notify interested projects and editors per
WP:AFD#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors, I have notified the following:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation,
User:Sylvain Mielot,
User:Rlandmann,
User:Kyteto, and
User:MilborneOne. Thanks. -
BilCat (
talk) 08:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- As advised on your Talk Page, which you have deleted, I have no obligation to notify editors: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion".
Mztourist (
talk) 08:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- For the record, my notifications were fully in line with the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Canvassing:
In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
Editors known for expertise in the field
Editors who have asked to be kept informed
- The specific editors I notified were all significant contributors to the article over its long history, and I used a standard neutral template. I did so as a courtesy to those users, something the nominator was expressly unwilling to do. For these actions, the nominator twice accused me of canvassing, the second time falsely claiming
You are WP:Canvassing by selectively notifying your friends effectively asking them to support your position.
. Such slander is totally unwarranted, but not surprising. I will continue to notify relavant parties, including Wikiprojects, of AFDs as I see fit, especially when the nominators, including this one, neglect to do so. - BilCat ( talk) 03:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- For the record, my notifications were fully in line with the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Canvassing:
- As advised on your Talk Page, which you have deleted, I have no obligation to notify editors: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion".
Mztourist (
talk) 08:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Transall C-160. First of all, whether a topic is notable is down to sufficient WP:RS, it has nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFF. Second, whether a notable topic gets its own article or shares one with a related (parent/child/sibling) topic is based as much on the size and coherence of the individual subject matter rather than rigid habits (sorry forgot the WP:xxx thing for that). The consortium is clearly notable, but equally clearly it cannot sustain a worthwhile standalone article alongside its sole product. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 08:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep easily passes WP:ORGCRIT, Flight International and Air International both being well respected aviation reference sources. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - I think it has enough material to stand on its own merits; also, some information, such as the proposed C-161, would be entirely out of place on the C-160's article. I've tried to query whether the article should contain information on the manufacturing sites, but direct answers can't be gotten - perhaps discussing what sort of content should and shouldn't be there, rather than just the articles existence at all, would be worthwhile
Kyteto (
talk) 12:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- All information on the page has been copied over from the Transall C-160 page (most of it by you), there is no material here. No substantive information has been provided regarding the C-161, it sounds like an unproduced variant of the C-160 and so belongs on that page.
Mztourist (
talk) 13:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment:
User:Mztourist: you have made your case in your original nomination, it really isn't necessary to refute each and every post here on this page that disagrees with you. -
Ahunt (
talk) 13:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- As there are various
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions being made and ongoing conflation of the RS and SIGCOV concerning the Transall C-160 with Transall, I feel this should be pointed out. I would note that its deletion discussion, not deletion vote.
Mztourist (
talk) 14:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Those are up to the closing admin to assess, not the nominator. Jumping all over each person who posts here just starts to look like an attempt to close down debate and WP:HARASS. I was going to add my own comments to the deletion discussion, but I don't really feel like doing that, knowing you will immediately jump all over my arguments, no matter what they are. I would suggest that you have made your case in the nomination, now let people post their opinions and arguments here without being immediately refuted. - Ahunt ( talk) 15:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- As there are various
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions being made and ongoing conflation of the RS and SIGCOV concerning the Transall C-160 with Transall, I feel this should be pointed out. I would note that its deletion discussion, not deletion vote.
Mztourist (
talk) 14:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment:
User:Mztourist: you have made your case in your original nomination, it really isn't necessary to refute each and every post here on this page that disagrees with you. -
Ahunt (
talk) 13:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- All information on the page has been copied over from the Transall C-160 page (most of it by you), there is no material here. No substantive information has been provided regarding the C-161, it sounds like an unproduced variant of the C-160 and so belongs on that page.
Mztourist (
talk) 13:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep clearly a noteworthy three-country international collaboration well reported in the media at the time. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I would counsel User:Mztourist to read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle ( talk) 08:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Merge. Redirect to Transall C-160. Both the articles are inextricably linked with each other. It seems best to merge them. Lordofthesky ( talk) 08:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- — Lordofthesky ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The user has made 7 edits to this point, six of them to 4 AFDs. - BilCat ( talk) 09:05, 30 April 2020 (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 keep. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Transall
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Transall ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The page fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and shows an inconsistent approach to aircraft manufacturing consortia. Transall was a single product consortium to produce the Transall C-160. As a consortium, it was an unincorporated commercial arrangement and not a separate legal entity. Unlike Eurofighter GmbH, Panavia Aircraft GmbH and SEPECAT which were separate legal entities, we don't have separate pages for unincorporated aircraft consortia such as the Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet construction agreement and the Concorde construction agreement, I don't see why Transall should be treated differently just because they came up with a name. The Transall page recently has been pumped up with information about the Transall C-160 unrelated to the entity as there is so little information about Transall separate from its sole product. All the information about the consortium can easily be covered in one paragraph on the Transall C-160 page and in fact it already exists there. Mztourist ( talk) 06:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 06:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 06:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
OpposeKeep - Article clearly meets WP:GNG, having significant coverage in several aviation periodicals and books. Please note the article has existed as a stub for nearly 14 years, but was only put up for deletion after recent expansion. - BilCat ( talk) 07:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)- Transall C-160 has WP:SIGCOV, Transall doesn't. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Article age Mztourist ( talk) 07:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Whether or not it currently has sufficient material for an article is also no grounds for deletion - the real question, is enough material available? I suspect the answer is yes, because outside of its development of the aircraft there must have been sufficient politics involved to write an article about. The non-existence of other similar articles is likewise not an argument against the existence of this article. It just means those ones may also need to be written.
- NiD.29 (
talk) 07:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:But there must be sources! Mztourist ( talk) 08:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comments - As the nominator failed to notify interested projects and editors per
WP:AFD#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors, I have notified the following:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation,
User:Sylvain Mielot,
User:Rlandmann,
User:Kyteto, and
User:MilborneOne. Thanks. -
BilCat (
talk) 08:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- As advised on your Talk Page, which you have deleted, I have no obligation to notify editors: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion".
Mztourist (
talk) 08:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- For the record, my notifications were fully in line with the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Canvassing:
In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
Editors known for expertise in the field
Editors who have asked to be kept informed
- The specific editors I notified were all significant contributors to the article over its long history, and I used a standard neutral template. I did so as a courtesy to those users, something the nominator was expressly unwilling to do. For these actions, the nominator twice accused me of canvassing, the second time falsely claiming
You are WP:Canvassing by selectively notifying your friends effectively asking them to support your position.
. Such slander is totally unwarranted, but not surprising. I will continue to notify relavant parties, including Wikiprojects, of AFDs as I see fit, especially when the nominators, including this one, neglect to do so. - BilCat ( talk) 03:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- For the record, my notifications were fully in line with the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Canvassing:
- As advised on your Talk Page, which you have deleted, I have no obligation to notify editors: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion".
Mztourist (
talk) 08:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Transall C-160. First of all, whether a topic is notable is down to sufficient WP:RS, it has nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFF. Second, whether a notable topic gets its own article or shares one with a related (parent/child/sibling) topic is based as much on the size and coherence of the individual subject matter rather than rigid habits (sorry forgot the WP:xxx thing for that). The consortium is clearly notable, but equally clearly it cannot sustain a worthwhile standalone article alongside its sole product. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 08:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep easily passes WP:ORGCRIT, Flight International and Air International both being well respected aviation reference sources. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - I think it has enough material to stand on its own merits; also, some information, such as the proposed C-161, would be entirely out of place on the C-160's article. I've tried to query whether the article should contain information on the manufacturing sites, but direct answers can't be gotten - perhaps discussing what sort of content should and shouldn't be there, rather than just the articles existence at all, would be worthwhile
Kyteto (
talk) 12:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- All information on the page has been copied over from the Transall C-160 page (most of it by you), there is no material here. No substantive information has been provided regarding the C-161, it sounds like an unproduced variant of the C-160 and so belongs on that page.
Mztourist (
talk) 13:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment:
User:Mztourist: you have made your case in your original nomination, it really isn't necessary to refute each and every post here on this page that disagrees with you. -
Ahunt (
talk) 13:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- As there are various
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions being made and ongoing conflation of the RS and SIGCOV concerning the Transall C-160 with Transall, I feel this should be pointed out. I would note that its deletion discussion, not deletion vote.
Mztourist (
talk) 14:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Those are up to the closing admin to assess, not the nominator. Jumping all over each person who posts here just starts to look like an attempt to close down debate and WP:HARASS. I was going to add my own comments to the deletion discussion, but I don't really feel like doing that, knowing you will immediately jump all over my arguments, no matter what they are. I would suggest that you have made your case in the nomination, now let people post their opinions and arguments here without being immediately refuted. - Ahunt ( talk) 15:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- As there are various
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions being made and ongoing conflation of the RS and SIGCOV concerning the Transall C-160 with Transall, I feel this should be pointed out. I would note that its deletion discussion, not deletion vote.
Mztourist (
talk) 14:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment:
User:Mztourist: you have made your case in your original nomination, it really isn't necessary to refute each and every post here on this page that disagrees with you. -
Ahunt (
talk) 13:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- All information on the page has been copied over from the Transall C-160 page (most of it by you), there is no material here. No substantive information has been provided regarding the C-161, it sounds like an unproduced variant of the C-160 and so belongs on that page.
Mztourist (
talk) 13:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep clearly a noteworthy three-country international collaboration well reported in the media at the time. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I would counsel User:Mztourist to read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle ( talk) 08:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Merge. Redirect to Transall C-160. Both the articles are inextricably linked with each other. It seems best to merge them. Lordofthesky ( talk) 08:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- — Lordofthesky ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The user has made 7 edits to this point, six of them to 4 AFDs. - BilCat ( talk) 09:05, 30 April 2020 (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.