Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft graffiti (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete, primarily because it's OR and there is not agreement on whether it is an encyclopedic topic that doesn't overlap too much with an existing topic. No prejudice against re-creating this page as a redirect to an appropriate target. ‑Scottywong | express _ 16:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft graffiti
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The subject of this article is an area where graffiti can be applied and is not on its own notable (WP:GNG). In 7 1/2 years, no references have been found. I have tried prodding, but was opposed so we will try this approach. I note the article was proposed for deletion 7 years ago, but somehow survived. None of the keep arguments referenced policy. The talk page admits the article is original research (WP:OR) Op47 (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - maybe worth a mention under the Graffiti article, but a stand-alone article is not justified here. Mjroots (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - the topic of writing things on bombs, mentioned in this article, might be notable, but it doesn't belong here.--Colapeninsula (talk)
 * Merge with graffiti. No reason to have a separate entry for graffiti based on whether it's on a wall or a billboard or a van or a plane, etc.JoelWhy (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – nose art, a form of aircraft graffiti, is a quite notable topic in its own right. I'm not clear that a delete is in order here. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RJH (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Right now this article reads like original research. But there actually may be a topic out there to be written.  We already have a decent article on Nose art, which is the best known variety of aircraft graffiti and certainly a notable topic. Also, there's a continuing art project called "The Boneyard Project"  that involves using abandoned aircraft as the medium for art projects: it's currently on display at the gigantic Pima Air & Space Museum in Tucson.  For the moment, I'd suggest redirecting/merging this topic to Nose art.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting topic, but unless there are reliable sources it's probably not a notable one. I suggest merging a sentence or so about this topic into the graffiti article. Note that nose art is not graffiti as commonly understood as its applied with official sanction (officially or unofficially; you obviously can't paint something on a military aircraft without someone in authority noticing!) Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I am in my 23rd year of working on aircraft; in that time I have worked on literally hundreds of different aircraft. How many had graffiti? One - I remember it clearly becuase it was the only time I have ever seen graffiti on an airframe. It's not commonplace, it's not notable. IMO neither nose art nor the art project Arxiloxos talks about are actually graffiti. YSSYguy (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to note that multiple sources about "The Boneyard Project" do refer to it in terms of graffiti, e.g.. --Arxiloxos (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Interesting, obscure topic. Like the complex nose art on aircraft and the transient graffiti on munitions, there is also a less well-known tradition of mission graffiti to the aircraft. If this is merged though, it should be to nose art rather than graffiti.
 * There's also the tradition of graffiti applied to other unit's kit, often to show that one unit can outwit another. There are very well known photos of an Avro Vulcan that visited NZ and acquired kiwi roundels, NZAF style, as a result. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Andy Dingley is talking about 'zapping', the practice of units applying not graffiti, but their unit insignias, to other units' aircraft. This is not aircraft graffiti, and is not a valid argument for retention of this article. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly that's only one aspect of it - some is self-imposed too, especially the propaganda sloganeering of the Soviets during combat.
 * Secondly graffiti doesn't stop being graffiti because it's a symbol rather than a word. Zapping (of ships at least) has also often used things that aren't unit symbols: silhouette frogmen or submarines painted onto the waterline of a successful target is just one part of that. As is Kilroy. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: By the sounds of it, zapping may well be an appropriate topic. However, if zapping applies to water craft as well as aircraft then that means it is outside the scope of this article and hence this article should still be removed. Op47 (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a logical non-sequitur. Zapping might be a notable topic, and a topic broader than merely aircraft, but that doesn't imply that its occurrence on aircraft should be removed from aircraft graffiti and certainly not that aircraft graffiti is also made non-notable by it being broader than this! Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was pointing out that your mention of Zapping in relation to water craft is in actual fact a "logical non-sequitur." I am sorry I did not say so explicitly. Op47 (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO all sorts of things that are not aircraft graffiti are being advanced as reasons to keep the article. Nose art is not aircraft graffiti. Propaganda slogans painted on Soviet Union aircraft in WWII are not aircraft graffiti. Zapping (which is not exclusive to the aircraft alone - visiting crews also zap the mess, toilets and accommodation) is not aircraft graffiti. Scrawling messages on bombs or missiles is not aircraft graffiti - they aren't aircraft and it was also done on artillery shells. The Boneyard Project isn't aircraft graffiti. YSSYguy (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * From the !v below you're evidently such a WP:RS in your own right that your "real-life experience" (which I might point out is a little skimpy on combat aircraft) is axiomatic, all by itself. However that's not how WP works.
 * No-one is claiming that nose art is graffiti. Rather it was presented here as a contextual contrast (Which should be damned obvious to any closing admin, and quite frankly it's a rather pathetic argument to descend to claims that "nose art isn't graffiti" or "ships aren't aircraft"). I'm curious though as to why the Soviet sloganeering shouldn't be considered as graffiti? Do you dispute that this happened, or that transient chalked messages on aircraft somehow aren't "graffiti"? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Military transport aircraft get zapped too, and the one instance I have seen of actual graffiti was on a civil aircraft, in a spot only accessible to engineers. As for the Soviet aircraft, everything I have seen has shown that the slogans were painted on and were the equivalent to nose art for other air arms in WWII, for example a Polikarpov I-16 painted with "For Stalin!" in huge letters on the side of the fuselage. YSSYguy (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and especially the real-life experience of YSSYguy. Any necessary material can go into our articles on aircraft markings. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2012 (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.