Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flitfire


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Flitfire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doubtful notability, fails WP:GNG. Seems to be connected to just one event and the split off from Piper J-3 Cub looks to be done in anger, not on arguments. The Banner talk 22:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply from Cubgirl I tried to discuss Flitfires in depth on the J3 Cub page & the work kept getting deleted. So a stand alone Wiki page on Flitfire aircraft was created. Nid.29 was informed and immediately nominated it for deletion. That's the epitome of "Edit Warring." Flitfires, unlike regular J3 Cubs, were only built for 2 weeks in April 1941 and there were only 49 built. They have a unique history. Data from many articles were gathered & everything discussed in this Flitfire article was cited back to independent, verifiable sources. As a courtesy, the Flitfire section in Nid.29's J3 Cub page was restored back to its original content. Wiki's WP:GNG says the following: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.    "Significant coverage"     "Reliable"     "Sources"     "Independent of the subject"     "Presumed"  If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." To this end, there are many separate, independent, verifiable, reliable Flitfire sources in books, magazines & various web pages. No where on Wikipedia is the Flitfire discussed in depth besides this article. These external sources are now brought together on one page in Wiki & all data cited. Finally, Nid.29 talks about this article as having "overly flowery language" but he does not provide even ONE EXAMPLE of "overly flowery language" used. Also, he does not give an example how the language is "non-neutral". Simply making these kinds of statements does not make them true. Perhaps Nid.29 sees "overly flowery language" only because he's deduced I'm a woman from my user name. Perhaps he's opposed to a woman contributing to aviation articles in general on Wikipedia? I'm an engineer and a pilot, but Nid.29 chooses to see a woman who writes with "overly flowery language" for "non-neutral" articles. A more egalitarian gesture may have been to objectively read the article & suggest improvements, rather than citing "overly flowery language" & nominating it for immediate deletion. The article on the Flitfire aircraft is clear, concise and well cited. I stand by it. Cubgirl4444 (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Cubgirl, does the opening sentence 'When speaking of the brave Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots who repelled the Nazi invasion of their homeland during the Battle of Britain, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill said, "Never was so much, owed by so many, to so few"'  count as 'flowery'? I'm UK and that intro makes even me reach for my cliche-swatter.Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that the "When speaking of the brave Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots..." bit is a direct lift from here.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wherever 'lifted from', it's off topic and unencycl stylistically, the subject though is of interest and covered quite well in the J-3 Cub article.Pincrete (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't disputing that the text in question was unsuitable - I was merely pointing out that it would have to be removed or rewritten anyway to remove copyvio.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that text has been removed from the article as a copyvio from . The article creator has reinserted it once.Nigel Ish (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete - the subject is worth having a sentence or two in the J-3 Cub article, but not this amount of coverage. The article has been written as a magazine-style article and not as a an encyclopaedia article. I know this can be fixed with editing, but I don't think it's worth the considerable effort required - the subject would remain insufficiently notable to meet the GNG no matter what tone is taken in the article. YSSYguy (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete - merge useful content not already there into J-3 Cub article, possibly redirect.Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Delete/Merge - separate article unnecessary. Ensure adequate coverage in the J-3 cub article and delete.--Petebutt (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge into J-3 Cub. -Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I just found this section! Newbie to Wiki.

The folks at the Piper J3 Cub site do not want this data there. I tried to add it to their Flitfire section several times but everything kept getting deleted. So this separate page was created, and within 2 hours it was nominated for deletion. It's been a WIP since then but I've finally gotten it where I want it, with much aggravation, because I didn't understand what was and was not allowed.

Anyway, my preference is to just delete this rather than put it on a site where the info is unwelcome, or worse yet, would be butchered. I can share the Flitfire data on a private web page, which I'd prefer to do rather than merge it.

I wanted to familiarize folks with the rich history of the Flitfire but I'm not sure anyone on Wiki is that interested. But try flying one into an FBO where you're unknown. Then everyone wants to know about it. "Why is your cub not yellow?" "Is this an L-4?" "No silver Cubs ever came out of Lock Haven." "Your cub can't be a 1941; they didn't make cubs during the war." etc., etc. My intention was to be able to direct folks to a site for them to read up on Flitfires to answer their questions. That goal can be accomplished via a private website.

Also, my understanding is I could never put copyright photos on the Wiki site, even with "special permission". (I've contacted several companies to get special permission to use their pictures.) On a private Flitfire web site I could post these old photos (with their permission). Without the old photos, this article loses a lot.

As far as the flowery language: it was taken directly from the EAA article. I have reworded it since but the language did make me aware of the dire situation in 1940 and the spirit of the people back then. The Battle of Britain & Churchill's speech is necessary to explain the cub's history. One must realize that this is not a technical article. I didn't discuss wing span, best rate of glide, empty weight or the capacity of the gas tank, in gallons or hours.

My preference is to read an encyclopedia with language that is not dry, but that's a personal preference and may not be shared by many folks.

Delete Not Merge for this article is acceptable me.

Thanks everyone for your input. It's been eye-opening. Cubgirl4444 (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - at this point in time the subject seems notable and there are enough refs and possible text for a stand-alone encyclopedia article. As it sits the article has a lot of issues, mostly that it is written in "fan" language more than encyclopedic language, but this can be fixed once this AfD is closed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is not a technical article. It's historical. In response to Ahunt's comments, I tried googling "encyclopedic language". Nothing came up. Apparently it's a term esoteric to Wiki. Could someone please define "encyclopedic language"? I'd like to know more about the proposed "fix" of the work. What would be taken out? What would be added? What would be changed? Because there are too many unknowns, I vote Delete

P.S. I just found out that all the messages sent to my email from Wiki went to SPAM... I'll fix! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubgirl4444 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think what you are looking for is Manual of Style/Words to watch which gives some guidance about the tone and sort of language we use on Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia and so the tone is formal and avoids jargon, bias and fandom and also promotional language. We are here to describe subjects, not to promote them. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Actually the current version, as of now is pretty good for language, most of the early fan-type language has been cleaned up and I just cleaned up the last of it. I would recommend that anyone who indicated "delete" earlier have a re-read of the article now. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems well sourced, there is a good bit of history here. There is a lot of secondary information here that is not completely approriate (the "Never have so many..." quote from Churchill is overkill); but with a good clean-up, it would make a decent article.  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - most issues have now been resolved and they do appear to be sufficiently notable. Encyclopedic language refers to a neutral style with a minimum of adjectives and adverbs, something that a lot of aviation writing in the US fails miserably at whether from the EAA or most of the popular aviation magazines (a heritage that came from pulps doesn't help there), but that just helps ensure it gets rewritten in a cleaner style that is more readily understood by people whose first language may not be English, and makes automatic translations more likely to be comprehensible.NiD.29 (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. This topic is not notable enough to stand alone. The appropriate amount of material already exists in the Piper Cup article so there is no point in merging back in. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep we are not talking about a single aircraft, but a group of aircraft that was notably donated to the effort. Seems to be well sourced.  --rogerd (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 06:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  10:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Much work has been done on this article since this AfD was started and the article now meets WP:N and is properly referenced. It is also long enough for a stand-alone article. Editors who earlier indicated "delete" are encouraged to read the article again as it now is and reconsider their previous positions. - Ahunt (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Still it is not a separate plane but just a special edition. As a plane, it does not warrant an article. But I can live with a new title like "Piper J-3 Cub Flitfire Fundraising" or something similar. The Banner talk 11:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I somewhat agree the airplane is a variant of a J3, if you consider a different paint scheme a "variant". However, the Flitfire Brigade is an historical event that separates them from other J3's.  The words of Churchill are Churchill's and expressed tremendous gratitude Brit's felt for RAF pilots who fought in the Battle.  Note the Spitfire was perceived by the public to be the RAF fighter of the Battle of Britain.  One cannot discuss Spitfires without discussing the Battle of Britain.  (See Wiki article on )  The Battle and Spitfire Aircraft were the catalysts for Piper donating 49 Cubs to the RAFBF and naming them "Flitfires".  People should be exposed to the Flitfire Brigade, regardless whether it was 49 Cubs, 49 cars or 49 cows that were donated.  The event's conception, highly publicized charitable drive, the maiden formation flight and mass landing are worth remembering; if not here, then somewhere else.  Please don't get hung up on the fact the charitable donations happened to be Cubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubgirl4444 (talk • contribs)


 * 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.