Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centenary of Military Aviation 2014 Air Show


 * 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 Incubate. There seems to be a consensus to delete, on notability grounds. But, two three editors suggested this be incubated, as it's a current event and reliable sources may appear in the next few months. This seems like a reasonable compromise, so moving this to Draft:Centenary of Military Aviation 2014 Air Show. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Centenary of Military Aviation 2014 Air Show

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While there has been publicity about this one-off air show, it hasn't actually taken place yet and it does not meet the WP:GNG. I would support a merge to RAAF Williams or other target, pending any future indications of Notability YSSYguy (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. No substantial secondary coverage from reliable sources for this event. WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * With all respect, has anyone looked for secondary sources so far? A quick and simple google search for "Centenary of Military Aviation" brought not only the "primary" website (www.airforce.gov.au › airforce.gov.au) but also a few news websites (e.g.: ABC Online, www.australianflying.com.au › news ) and others that highlight the relevance of this celebration (e.g.: www.visitvictoria.com ). So the fact that the editor who created the article hasn't yet provided secondary sources doesn't mean they don't (or won't) exist. Regards, DPdH (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Defence has received huge interest from MSM the week prior to CMA14 which will result in a flood of third party material being published shortly Hpeterswald (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. Sources supporting this statement? What's MSM please? Thanks,DPdH (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as it doesn't meet WP:EVENT. The RAAF runs a large-scale airshow each year (with the location rotating between the service's main bases), and this appears to be this year's. Each year has a theme of some sort, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume that this one will receive lasting coverage due to the centenary link. If it does we can always recreate the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose You're assuming that this year's topic is the Centenary of RAAF; and the airshow is not every year. This is a specific event to celebrate the Centennary - will look for supporting evidence. Regards, DPdH (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The RAAF holds a large airshow each year, rotating among its bases. The 2013 show was at Amberley in Queensland, 2012's was at Pearce in WA. YSSYguy (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Centenary at Point Cook allows the RAAF to display many of the inservice and historic aircraft used over its history and in storage at the RAAF Museum Hangers not available at other bases Hpeterswald (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This airshow may well "allow" the RAAF Museum to open the storage hangars, but will it open the storage hangars? Secondly, does the absence of a Centenary last year or next year forbid the RAAF Museum opening the storage hangars during any of the many annual public events held there? YSSYguy (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete- I agree, not sufficiently notable for its own article. It may warrant a mention as part of RAAF Williams or Australian Flying Corps. In its current form, much of the article appears to be based on speculation from primary sources WP:CRYSTALBALL. Dfadden (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain why is not notable? Also if the current article is lacking, maybe it should be improved rather than deleted? For example, looking for secondary sources. Regards,DPdH (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability has not been established with the sources provided:
 * 1. ^ |The Australian Flying Corps. AWM. Retrieved 6 February 2014. - This source does not once mention the subject of the article, which is the airshow celebrating the centenary of the Ausralian Flying Corps, not the Corps itself which already has an article. It merely provides context and verification of a date.
 * 2.^ "Project 2014".|boxkite2014.org. Retrieved 6 February 2014. - The only mention of the subject of the article in this source - which paraphrases a press release which is also used as a source - is a speculative quote ("is expected to be one of the major drawcards for the centenary of military aviation Air Pageant, at the RAAF Museum Point Cook, on 1st and 2nd March, 2014") which is indicative but not absolute confirmation.
 * ^3. "Bristol Boxkite replica flight testing". |defence.gov.au. Retrieved 6 February 2014. - This is a press release published by the Defence Media Organisation, an agency of the Department of Defence who are the organizer of the event.


 * None of the above present a case which would stand up to a challenge under WP:N and furthermore the focus and scope of the article appears to be a brief summary of the history of the Australian Flying Corps, and a separate though related project to construct a replica aircraft for the centenary of said organization. The only actual information about the airshow is unsourced speculation about aircraft which may attend lifted from a press release which carries the caveat "All aircraft and displays are subject to operational requirements, weather and aircraft availability and may change." In my opinion improving this article when there is nothing new here that is supported by independent sources or is not already covered or able to be included in an existing article does not seem necessary. Dfadden (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Good point indeed. Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Defence has received huge interest from MSM the week prior to CMA14 which will result in a flood of third party material being published shortly Hpeterswald (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * using the logic above equivalent Navy Centenary International_Fleet_Review_2013 should also be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpeterswald (talk • contribs)
 * I Support in principle retaining and improving the article, however the IFR2013 can't be compared "like for like" with the RAAF AFC Centenary event. However there are several articles related to "Fleet Reviews" that support existence of the IFR wikiarticle. Regards, DPdH (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Retain- Nick-D ignores that fact that a Bristol Boxkite replica was constructed over a seven year period for flying during the Centenary together with a Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2 Hpeterswald (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF - the existence of one article is not a reason to keep another. At any rate, the Fleet Review was shown live on television, which provided a big dose of "significant coverage". As for the replicas, they are being constructed to mark the Centenary, not for the air show; and notability is not transferrable from the Centenary itself or the aircraft to the show. It is actually quite difficult to find any mention of the B.E. 2 at all, while the RAAF issued a media release last year announcing the Boxkite's first flight and a couple of media parroted it; so that doesn't help the case for notability anyway. YSSYguy (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with this particular argument. Regards, DPdH (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * DPdH, I can't tell if you are for keeping the article or deleting, I find your statements contradictory, as my argument above is in support of deletion. Would you mind clarifying? Cheers. YSSYguy (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't want to create confusion. I agree with your argument above, not wit the deletion of the article. Will make my position explicit. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * MSM to publish third party material on replicas constructed and other aspects of the Centenary at Point Cook Hpeterswald (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Retain- The fact that the RAAF is celebrating its centenary is itself a notable event; not too many air forces have achieved that milestone yet. Hence an article related to that milestone deserves to be included in this encyclopedia. As per my comment in the article's talk page, I think that this article needs to change its scope from the airshow to the centenary itself. Also needs to be linked to other relevant articles. The notability guidelines mention that there is no need to rush to delete an article, as there are no deadlines to comply with. Hence I propose that we leave this article alive and let it evolve, and include secondary sources once the Airshow is held (in 1 week time!). Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If I may make a small correction and I mean you no disrespect in doing so - if the article were to be retained as is your preference, the focus should be on the centenary of the Australian Flying Corps or Australian military aviation in general. The RAAF as a dedicated arm of the Australian Defence Force did not come into existence until 1921, prior to then military aviation was a responsibility of the Army. It may sound like I am being pedantic, but I assure you for many people it is an important distinction to make and to convey otherwise would be historically inaccurate and misleading. Regards, Dfadden (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, that's why the celebration is about the "Centenary of Military Aviation", I didn't choose the right words. The new focus should be on the centenary of Australian military aviation in general. Regards, DPdH (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If this article is really about, or ought to be about, the centenary itself, then it is better handled within the context of the Australian Flying Corps. Except that that article already contains what tiny content is worth preserving here. And as to the idea that we should retain every article on an upcoming event in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability will emerge in its wake...it would mean that WP needs to retain every article on every upcoming event, something far beyond the scope of this encyclopedia and something that would reduce the utility of WP as an encyclopedia. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I disagree. That the article is now poorly written doesn't mean that is not worth improving and keeping. I listed some secondary sources in the article's talk page that can be used to improve it. And we need to remember what Wikipedia Guidelines recommend about rushing to delete an article:

''... . As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete. There may be alternatives to deletion, such as merging or reworking the article so that it conforms with policy, ...''
 * which we should consider. Regards, DPdH (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Defence has received huge interest from MSM the week prior to CMA14Hpeterswald (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree that the Centenary itself is worthy of mentioning, the argument is over whether the air show is worth a stand-alone article. The RAAF Williams article could easily have a paragraph or two about the Centenary, with a couple of sentences stating "an air show was held to celebrate the centenary and there were lots of aircraft there including a replica Bristol Boxkite"; beyond that, what else needs to be recorded about the show in an encyclopaedia? YSSYguy (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So... there is agreement around the notability of the centenary, and I have to concur that the airshow per se doesn't seem to be so notable. Hence my proposal: let's modify the article so it focuses on the centenary rather than the airshow. I also agree that there should be reference to the centenary in related wikiarticles, at least in the "RAAF Williams' and the "Australian Flying Corps" ones. Does this sounds acceptable, as an alternative to deletion? Regards, DPdH (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. There is essentially zero worthwhile content or sourcing to justify a freestanding article on this topic. Looking around for that rare anniversary where the anniversary itself is sufficiently notable, I see that even the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria doesn't rate its own article. The absence of substantial, secondary, reliable sourcing for this article, either as an event or a commemoration, mandates its removal. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I second that, "worthy of mentioning" is a fair bit short of "merits its own article". YSSYguy (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * However, the criteria on "rare anniversaries" seems not to be applied uniformly, as the articles Centenary of Western Australia and Argentina Centennial do exist by themselves. The absence of an article on the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria doesn't mean that it don't merit its own, only that has not yet been written; the existence of an article about the Silver Jubilee of Elizabeth II article supports this point. As for the lack of content, it's just a matter of looking for secondary sources (I've found some) and adding the information. Nothing "mandates" removal of this article, there are other options, as per the guidelines that I've quoted above. Regards, DPdH (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy incubate This is an event that may or may not occur on 1-2 March 2014.  This is a WP:CRYSTAL problem.  wp:Notability will be in flux until at least 15 March.  The list of sources shown at Talk:Centenary of Military Aviation 2014 Air Show make it reasonable that there will be internationally-available coverage of the event if it occurs.  This article is in bad shape, and it contains promotion, so the sooner we get it out of mainspace the better.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proposing another alternative. How is this incubation done, and by whom? Additionally, I didn't perceive the article as promotional, can you please clarify this point for me? So I would know what to look for in these cases. Regards, DPdH (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:Drafts in the sections "Incubation" and "Preparing drafts". The process was recently moved from WP:AI.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The promotion isn't that focused, especially since the date of the event isn't in the article, but IMO that is what this article represents. In twenty years, what interest will the world at large have in the pre-event stage?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Incubate until event has passed to assess what secondary cites become available per rapid. Suggest waiting for 60 days after event (early May 2014) to allow for a publication cycle of trade/enthusiast magazines. DCB1927 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Give me a break, this is hardly the sort of "breaking news event" addressed by WP:RAPID. These keep votes based on the rationale "let's wait, maybe something will crop up" simply emphasize the existing lack of substantial secondary coverage from reliable sources. If we want to expand WP's scope beyond being an encyclopedia to also host notices for any event that any editor wants to promote, then we should first change current policy. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As it stands cites are probably insufficient to warrant retention. Original editor has indicated third party cites are coming. Think it only fair to assume goodfaith and allow him/her to compile. Then assessments can be made with all the facts, rather than crystal balling on what my or may not happen. Hence my suggestion of waiting for the magazines to complete a cycle. By that stage it will be reasonable to assume there is nothing more to come. DCB1927 (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds ok except that you haven't explained why the article should remain in mainspace, indexed on Google, serving to promote the future event, without knowing that the event will or will not take place, when the article could be in draftspace. Unscintillating (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point, perhaps incubation would be a better solution. DCB1927 (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I support the proposal of incubating in draftspace rather than mainspace, as I wasn't aware of this alternative when the discussion started. Should this be done when the AfD is closed? Regards, DPdH (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete no indication that this is of note as far as airshows go, most airshows have a theme but that doesnt make them notable. Most airshows are annual events and some of these series (like the Paris Air Show or RIAT) have articles but as far as I know no modern individual shows have ever been notable enough for an article and I cant see why this one is. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As said elsewhere in this AfD, changing the article's topic from the airshow to the centenary may be a better option. Anyway, the event has already happened and it's time for the editor who created the article to work on improving it, ideally incorporating all the feedback generated from this discussion. Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The actually "centenary" appears to be the cententary of the use of airfield (which was bought in 1912!) so probably difficult to make an article, neither the AFC nor the RAAF article make any mention of a happening in March 1914, in fact the source used in the article doesnt mention a particular event either, all a bit vague. It could be mentioned in the airfield article but interesting that a significant airfield has not have an article either! MilborneOne (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For the airfield article see RAAF Base Williams, although I believe at some point this article was merged when the RAAF consolidatated ops Point Cook and Laverton into one base and so the focus isn't as clear as it could be. Also, the AFC page is lacking some history, and I still believe this article should be merged into that one to complete the missing pieces. Dfadden (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

-


 * Procedural question: so far only 5 editors (including the one who created the article under discussion) have participated in this AfD. And only 4 of us have been actively discussing... How can other editors be included in the discussion, to make it richer and show a better "consensus"? (regardless the final decision) Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been added to the relevant deletion sorting lists, but you can also post neutrally-worded notifications on relevant Wikiproject talk pages if you wish (I'd suggest WT:MILHIST and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

-


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 10:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

← Body of the discussion stays unchanged
 * 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.