Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft warning paint


 * 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   no consensus. The discussion is rather evenly divided between a merge and article retention. A merge discussion and discussion about potential merge targets can continue on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft warning paint

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Is this topic too narrow to be credible?

It's not a paint (and this article isn't structured as our colour shade and hue articles are). It's not a distinctive pattern. It's not lighting, or the overall distinction of hazard marking - the article limits itself to paint alone.

Is there enough left to justify an article? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename to something like "Aircraft hazard marking and lighting" if there is not an equivalent article already. This would be a notable topic. BayShrimp (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, then why don`t we just make a page and merge every article into it? Happy Attack Dog  ( you rang? ) 19:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge. The topic is pretty narrow. I couldn't even find anything to merge it into except for perhaps Warning system (which, at, was a list of links with a single source). So, failing that, merge into Warning system. APerson (talk!) 01:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge as above, topic is too narrow to sustain an article in its own right. Merge into Warning system. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   02:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't make sense to have it Merged with Warning paint as it is a list of links. What about merging Aircraft warning paint and Aircraft warning lights into a article with the name like Aircraft warning system?  Happy Attack Dog  ( you rang? ) 13:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd support a merge, but as a section under Aircraft warning lights, as the clearest commonname. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not going to beg that my article not be deleted, or rip peoples heads off or Get on the phone with my lawyer over this, but how does Aircraft warning lights effectively talk about an entirely different system? These 2 pages are talking about totally different systems and the only similarity is that they both are used to identify tall objects. That kind of defeats the purpose of merging it with Aircraft warning lights....    Happy Attack Dog  ( you rang? ) 17:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Happy Attack Dog in that Aircraft warning lights is not a good merge; however, it should definitely be merged into an article such as Warning system. APerson (talk!) 22:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 23:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge is right, I just don't know where to. Aircraft hazard marking and lighting would be fine but is a red link, Warning system is a bit unspecific but will do if there's nothing else I suppose.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep The main thing the article needed was a good picture so I have added one. The scope of the topic seems quite clear and straightforward.  Any second-guessing is irrelevant to the issue of deletion.  AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Now that the image clarifies the subject I have changed my !vote - sources support stub level.  Flat Out   let's discuss it  09:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Although notable, the subject is obscure and this is probably just one of those articles that is never going to be very large. I'd like another source or two. But in this case they might be harder to come by. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge with Aircraft warning lights and rename. or Keep - I'd imagine any pilot would say it is notable. There has to be sources, if looked for hard enough. There are also red colored spheres to mark power lines, so helicopters won't run into them. It could be renamed to Aircraft hazard marking and lighting, but a Windsock doesn't necessarily fall into hazard markings. Leave Navigation light as it is. - Sidelight 12 Talk 03:08, 13 April 2014 (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.