Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigsworth chart board


 * 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 merge to Arthur Bigsworth. Perhaps selectively, and improving the content in the process - I note that the somewhat lengthy article does not explain how exactly this device works and what the point of it was.  Sandstein  10:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Bigsworth chart board

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

User:Samf4u attempted to create this AfD, but did not complete it. I saw that User:BilCat also supported such an AfD. Personally, I am neutral; the supporters of deletion will have to provide the reasons for deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep:A notable piece of equipment.. that all who served on WWII and before larger RAF aircraft would have been familiar with. More could be done with some more research.The IWM has material on it. (Msrasnw (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC))(I created this little stub in the hope of finding out more)
 * If you do not know that sufficient sources exist and merely hope they might, then creating an article, stub or no, is not the way ahead. If you just need to buy some time you can create a draft in the Draft: namespace. If your provenance is more speculative, you can create it as a subpage in your own user space, buit even that is subject to eventual deletion if it stagnates for too long. If you wish to keep working on it, you might like to move it to one of those safer homes before it gets erased from memory. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply ... I think we disagree on the way things work or should work .. and your view is probably now the majority view. I thought and think this device is notable. I had seen a picture of them and wanted to find out more and thought Wikipedia ought have a page. It didn't - no it does... perhaps it won't. Starting such a page might get others to help add things .. ( My guess is they used to be really well known - 1918-1940s and  J.W. Dunne would probably have known of the Bigsworth.  I think there are sufficient sources and it should be OK ... some other pages Appleyard Course and Distance Computer and the  Douglas Combined Protractor and Parallel Rule could also be nice ones to have.  The Bigsworth gets a nice - but little - mention in the book about Moffat and his observer Dusty Miller sinking the Bismarck from their Swordfish. There is a nice picture of the device in the US document .. that I was thinking to try and download but will perhaps wait in case I am wasting my time. Anyway best wishes... and it was nice to find out about Dunne and I did a quick page on Dr Mary Cleugh.. but someone will probably want to delete that too. Anyway why would anyone want this page deleting is something I find confusing.But best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC))


 * Keep per the sources cited in the article and found by the searches above. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability due to lack of significant coverage that is more than a trivial mention IMHO. Apologize for not properly completing the AfD due to a real life issue. - Samf4u (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge with Arthur Bigsworth, per . Insufficient WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. The cited sources give only a brief passing mention. No independent sources (even taken together) appear to give sufficient in-depth coverage to establish notability. It's just a brand of navigator's clipboard. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC) [Update] But it does have enough coverage to warrant mention in its inventor's bio. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm finding it difficult to reconcile the last two statements with the sources that I cited in this article before they were made. They each contain a pretty full description of this device. That is significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, significant coverage means reliable, secondary sources with detailed coverage. See WP:GNG policy page, and WP:EMSC essay for more info. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And those are reliable secondary sources with detailed coverage, as described on those pages. What makes you think they are not? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They do not devote a significant amount of content to the device. They have very little to say about it, far less than a full chapter. By contrast for example the Supermarine Spitfire prototype K5054 has no books devoted entirely to it either, but it does have whole chapters and more in a good many, and also whole articles in magazines. We do not even have an article for navigational chart boards in general; aspiring to one for a particular brand is not really tenable. My best suggestion would be to add some mention of chart boards and their use to Navigational instrument and/ or Navigation, see if you can make that stick. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Msrasnw (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Msrasnw (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. - BilCat (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I just Googled and fond enough references about Bigsworth chart board.  D My Son  08:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would care to share them with Wikipedia? I too googled but found nothing beyond the trivial. Per WP:PROVEIT, the burden of proof is on those who claim such sources exist, not on those who doubt. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added some more refs and the Swordfish story and ref to that - which might help some .... but not others who - would prefer not to delete. this. I think it is a design rather than a brand and its production in "substantial quantities" and widespread nature and longevity of use are important for notability.(Msrasnw (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC))
 * And none appear to give more than passing mention, they do not establish WP:NOTABILITY per Wikipedia policy. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge with Arthur Bigsworth. Probably worth a mention, but as stated above does not merit its own article. Retswerb (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge with Arthur Bigsworth - Certainly not worth an article on its own per WP:GNG. - BilCat (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think merging with the page on Arthur Bigsworth  would unbalance that page unless it was just a comment and therefore would be likely to mean we would lose most of the information from here. (Msrasnw (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC))
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Msrasnw (talk) 08:16, 2 August 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.