Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guidance, navigation and control


 * 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   keep.  Wifione  Message 04:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Guidance, navigation and control

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Prodded with "Dicdef, no sources.", prod2'd with "seems to be a dictionary definition - the three elements considered together rather than a specific discipline". I agree with prod2. Deprodded for no good reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - GNC is a well-established discipline within aviation (people speak of GNC software and GNC computers); there are GNC conferences held annually like http://www.aiaa.org/GNC2012; there are university courses and lectures in the discipline like the one at MIT http://academicearth.org/lectures/guidance-navigation-and-control and the one at Georgia Tech http://www.pe.gatech.edu/courses/guidance-navigation-and-control-theory-and-applications; the term is widely used by respected organisations like NASA http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-gnnc.html; in short it's a notable term and by no means merely a dicdef. I'll add these sources to the article now - Google offers another half-million for us to choose from if that's not enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep A topic as big as this cannot simply be dismissed as a dicdef. This is a case where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and the integration of those elements is the subject of books and provides employment to many. At present it is a stub, and requires input from editors with a proper grounding in the subject, but it has a useful purpose in Wikipedia as providing a place where the wider topic can be explained as well as refering users to specific applications and related topics. --AJHingston (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm inclined to keep as per AJHingston, but there's got to be a better title for this article. I'm not a fan of the comma. I concur that there's probably evidence to support inclusion as its own topic. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep handily meets WP:GNG with tens of thousands of hits on gbooks and scholar. Title is unfortunately clunky, but this is what the engineers decided to call this field of study.   Haus Talk 17:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - it does not take long looking at GScholar and GBooks results to see that this is a notable topic. Article needs to be expanded, not deleted. Lady  of  Shalott  21:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. AH, we have a CONTENT FORK: Guidance system contains a whole section starting (my emphasis) "Guidance systems consist of '3 essential parts: navigation which tracks current location, guidance which leverages navigation data and target information to direct flight control "where to go", and control' which accepts guidance commands to effect change in aerodynamic and/or engine controls."  --- so we in fact have 2 articles both on G, N and C already, and apparently "Guidance system" means both "G by itself" and "G with N and C". Perhaps a Redirect or Merge would be best??? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Article needs a lot of work to make it useful. Other then that it is an article that is needed.-- Navy Blue84  21:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- GN&C is definitely a notable engineering discipline, especially in spaceflight which I am a bit more familiar with. "GNC Engineer" is a common job title for those who write the software to perform the GNC functions necessary for a typical space mission.  I will say that I agree that the article need lots of citations to reliable sources.  But the correct Wikipedia solution is to remove the specifically challenged unsourced claims after a while rather than to delete the entire article.  N2e (talk) 21:58, 8 February 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.