VanGrunsven RV-2: Is not individually notable beyond its series.  Air on White ( talk ) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products , Engineering , Technology , Aviation ,  and United States of America .  Air on White ( talk ) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- the EAA video cited in the article has the interviewer ask the designer specifically about this design, and they discuss it in more than passing.  The video from Van's about the restoration of another design which uses part of this design is also more than a passing reference, but since it's from the company themselves, it's not truly independent of the subject.  In a case like this, where we have a series of 13 out of 14 closely-related articles that are all patently notable, and 1 out of 14 that's iffy, I think it makes sense to WP:IAR if we don't have the magic three sources .  [edit] Oh, and procedural note: this AfD and the nom's approach to a good faith mistake by the article's newbie creator [44] is one of the worst examples of biting I can recall seeing.  And it appears to have worked; he hasn't edited since, nor responded to an attempt to reach out to him.  -- Rlandmann ( talk ) 00:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When did U5-tagging an unsourced autobiography that promotes the author's resume become "biting"?  Are we so scared of scaring off newbies that we allow whatever promotion and spam they insert?  Has the blame shifted from spammers and COIS to the new page patrollers and admins who work the speedy deletion process?  Air on White ( talk ) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please take some time to read over this section of the behavioural guideline and reflect a little.  With behavioural guidelines, it's less about what you did, and how you did it.  I completely believe that you acted in 100% good faith here, but the outcome was still a bad one for the newbie and for the project.  I've done patrolling in the past, and I know what a grind it can be (and how valuable it is to the encyclopedia).  But if sustaining that fight is taking its toll and leading to actions like this, it might be time for a rest for a while and work on writing about something that brings you joy and recharges you.  -- Rlandmann ( talk ) 00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you concretely explain what I did wrong?  How is this case is different from normal?  Are you yourself aware of your patronizing, judgmental tone?  Air on White ( talk ) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I'm very happy to dive into this in detail with you; but I'll take it to your talk page.  I apologise if you don't like my tone; it's not my intention to come across that way.  That said, there's a profound difference between two highly experienced editors communicating in a forum like this vs how a highly experienced editor with tools permissions treated a well-meaning newbie.  I would additionally suggest however, that both your responses here confirm my impression that time on the front line might be taking a toll.  More shortly in a different place. -- Rlandmann ( talk ) 01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I wasn't trying to promote anything.  I am content with my employment (i.e. not looking to get into anything else) and my company makes business-to-business products (i.e. it's not like a Wikipedia reader is going to decide to buy a cargo jet after reading that I work on them).  I thought that writing about myself would (A) establish that I'm knowledgeable about my field (including awareness about good public sources to get relevant details from) and (B) show that I'm trying to be honest and to do things in good faith since I'm tying my actions on Wikipedia to my real name and career, not an anonymous pseudonym.  But, ok, if there is no advantage to being a real expert rather than a random anonymous stranger on the internet, I can create a pseudonymous screen name instead and use that (other than for uploading images, which I do intend to retain ownership of).  Bernardo.Malfitano ( talk ) 15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Now to the actual argument of the keep post.  Interviews do not always contribute to notability.  The Van's video most definitely does not count as a source as it is not independent at all - all company videos can be assumed to be promotional sources that do not undergo the rigorous fact-checking of RS.  It provides 0 sources toward the "magic three."  The only other source is the EAA video.  Can you provide the timestamp of the interview where the RV-2 is mentioned?  It is also equivalent to a serious, reliable documentary?  At best, it is 1 source.  No amount of invalid sources adds up to notability—0+0+0+...+0 = 0.  This keep case stretches and twists policy—the independence of sources and the threshold of GNG—to shoehorn a topic of supposedly inherited notability into Wikipedia.  Air on White ( talk ) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So, just verifying my own understanding here: when you opened this AfD and asserted that there were "no mention in RS besides passing ones", you had not actually viewed the sources?  -- Rlandmann ( talk ) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now Comment .  This article has only been here a few days.  I think it's too early to judge what RS might or might not be out there.  By all means tag it as short on RS, but deletion is premature.  Having said that, Van's Aircraft's own puff about its planes starts with the RV-3, so seeking sufficient RS to support this article could be a fool's errand.  Or maybe merging into Van's Aircraft will prove a good middle way.  I'd suggest we revisit this in a month or so.  — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk ) 06:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] [Update] See comment below following relisting, now that some of that time has passed.  — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk ) 20:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm new to Wikipedia and I obviously can't claim to understand the rules and the culture thoroughly.  If you guys decide that the article should be deleted, then, that's fine, do what you think is best.  FWIW, my rationale for creating the article was the following: Van's Aircraft is far and away the world leader in experimental airplanes, with over 11000 airplanes flying and countless others being built.  When people in the aviation world first learn about Van's - or maybe after investigating RV airplanes for a while - the question naturally comes up: If it's so easy to find out about the RV-1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15, then...  What about the RV-2, 5, and 11?  Now, again, I'm not 100% sure that Wikipedia is the place for (at least a very summarized version of) the answer, but...  Firstly: Wikipedia already had an article for the RV-11 (which made it a little further in its construction but was also unfinished).  And secondly: Wikipedia has countless articles about concept aircraft that never made it into the air, included in the encyclopedia because they're part of a series where people often wonder about missing numbers (The X-6 and X-54 didn't make it very far at all, and the X-33 and X-57 were cancelled after substantial prototyping and subsystems tests but before completion of the final vehicle), or because the development project was large and/or resulted in relevant technologies or partnerships or R&D later used for other things (National AeroSpace Plane, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, High Speed Civil Transport, Aerion SBJ and AS2...).  So I figured, if all those X planes and supersonic transports that never made it off the drawing board all warrant Wikipedia articles (and the RV-11 apparently does too), then the RV-2 probably does too.  But, again, I'm new here, and if my reasoning goes against how you guys think Wikipedia should be run, then, do whatever you think is best.  Bernardo.Malfitano ( talk ) 15:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In short: The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability states, under "Projects and studies", that such aircraft "are generally discouraged unless reliable sources provide strong evidence that the project (...) is a significant project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft".  It seems to me that the RV-2 and its article meet this criterion.  Bernardo.Malfitano ( talk ) 18:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am so glad to see you back!  I was really worried that we might have scared you off.  Note that that guideline is an unofficial one and does not trump the General Notability Guidelines.  (It's also ancient and reflects Wikipedia practices from 10-15 years ago, so needs to be brought into line with current practice...) -- Rlandmann ( talk ) 22:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While the !votes thus far all favor keep, their arguments call for (reasoned) exceptions to policy/guidelines rather than basing themselves on it, so a relist to allow for further discussion seems appropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On a point of order, my "Keep for now" is based on Articles for deletion where it says; " Wikipedia policy encourages editors to use deletion as a "last resort" following attempts to improve an article by conducting additional research." (my bold). I am pointing out above that those attempts need time. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk ) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- I endorse User:Rosguill 's summary of the situation.  And, after further research and further discussion with the contributor, I'll add that it seems really unlikely that further RS will be forthcoming anytime soon.  Based on the sources that we do have, then at worst, this material should be merged elsewhere.  However, there's no clear, logical place to do that.  In other, similar situations, we merge information about minor aircraft projects (particularly unbuilt or unfinished ones) into the article on a related design.  However, in this case, this was a stand-alone design that isn't related to anything else that Richard VanGrunsven designed or built.  Which means that his bio is the most obvious destination if we were to do a merge, but would create serious undue weight there.  So yes, if we do decide to keep this information in a separate article, it is as an exception , and one based purely on information architecture, not on the Notability of this design per se .  -- Rlandmann ( talk ) 10:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Bio .  Thank you for your additional research.  I don't think your suggested merge to his bio would be unduly undue, as it were.  There are several paras about his planes there and the meat of this one is really quite small.  Alternatively, since the canopy was used for the VanGrunsven RV-5 , it might be merged there, but I agree that is not very satisfactory.  — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk ) 11:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [add clear !vote — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk ) 10:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC) ] [ reply ] Merge (selectively) into Van's Aircraft#RV aircraft series as a premature SPINOFF without prejudice against a well-developed article.  gidonb ( talk ) 03:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging everyone who wanted this merged: Rlandmann and Steelpillow .  Best, gidonb ( talk ) 19:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks User:gidonb -- the problem here is that the RV-2 and RV-11 are not Van's Aircraft designs or products, and should be removed from that list ASAP.  (I've left them there for now pending this discussion)  Note how they're missing from the timeline graphic immediately below.   Creating a similar list of all Richard VanGrunsven 's designs in his bio would be one merge that could work and still avoid unduly unbalancing that article.  I'd hate to lose the images of the RV-2 and RV-11 now that we have them though, and also don't want to dominate VanGrunsven's bio with a table of all his designs and pictures.  If the outcome of this process is merge , maybe we should create a separate list article for all VanGrunsven's designs, with an image of each.  I think that would cover all the concerns that have come up in this discussion.  -- Rlandmann ( talk ) 23:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now as the best way forward, given Rlandmann 's input.  gidonb ( talk ) 23:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 03:51, 13 July 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus