Deletion of Landing flare

Comment: The nomination is not making any sense.  Having a shed full of sources is exactly what makes a topic notable per the . Here are some more substantial sources to add to the shed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: It's a necessary and integral part of landing an airplane (or at least any one I've ever seen).  It'd be like having a separate article on Lincoln's nose.  Yes, certainly things have been said about Lincoln's nose and it might pass , but there's no reason to cover it outside of the context of the main article.  If the main article were really long this might be a reasonable subarticle, but as it is there's no reason to split it out
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The flare is one tiny part of landing an aircraft and as such belongs in the Landing article, not in a stand alone article. If this were to survive then logically we should have articles on pre-landing checks, lowering the landing gear, approach, round out, flare, hold-off, touch down, braking and taxiing clear of the runway, which are the other parts of landing an aircraft. The existing articles Final approach (aviation) and Touch-and-go landing should probably also be combined into Landing, but that is another issue. The inclusion of descriptions of pyrotechnic flares used for night landings as "landing flares" in the same article, means this article is about two subjects, an aircraft maneuver and a pyrotechnic device. This is like combining the writing instrument Pen with Pig pens, on the basis that they are related subjects. The confusion of adding two subjects to the same article seems to have come about because the aircraft maneuver is too brief a subject to warrant a stand alone article in the first place without going into  territory and parts of the current article are already doing that
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMANUAL)