Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IML Addax


 * 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. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

IML Addax

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article that doesn't cite any sources about a plane that was never made. There is a few trivial mentions in blogs and a couple of brief sentences in some articles, but nothing in-depth that would pass WP:GNG. Which would make sense because apparently not much else seems to be known about it aside from that it was being designed at some point. So, likely won't be any in-depth coverage of it anywhere. At least not that isn't mostly speculation or original research. Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Although this project never resulted in any hardware being built and was never likely to have resulted in hardware, it does seem to have resulted in a fair amount of contemporary coverage - approximately a page's worth in Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1982–83 (pp. 807–808) as well as the magazine articles - while from memory I think that the Flight International coverage was pretty minimal (their on-line archive is down), I seem to recall that the Air International article was a bit longer (I no longer have a copy of the magazine in question. This coverage probably allows GNG to be just about passed.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that the Air International article appears to be written by a David Williams, the same name as the Addax's designer - while Air International is a good RS, the closer may need to be careful when considering the Williams article's contribution to natability.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * His article states that he was the designer and was invited to write it for that reason. That invitation alone helps establish notability, and don't forget it would have been subjected to editorial review. Where appropriate we do cite works by historical designers such as Geoffrey de Havilland, Sir Richard Fairey or Alexander Lippisch, no harm in doing so here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 *  Strong SNOW keep. Several of the sources cited or otherwise mentioned are top-quality RS for establishing notability. More are identified at https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/addax-1-s-new-zealand-combat-aircraft.235/ This was clearly a notable project which passes WP:GNG. Since the company appears to have no article and to be notable primarily for this design, this article is the best place to gather relevant information. That might change if enough can be put together about their other designs, but that is for the future. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC) [Update] Content has been added and referencing improved since this AfD was posted. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article has now been expanded with new information from Janes, which is pretty much the gold standard for aircraft, in establishing WP:GNG. Obviously now should be retained as of historical note, even though the aircraft was not completed. - Ahunt (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ahunt - if this warranted inclusion in Jane's, it means there's sufficient high quality coverage to meet our inclusion criteria. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ahunt. Unbuilt aircraft can be notable if they meet GNG, which the article now does. - BilCat (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Good that the article was expanded. It still only has three references though. The third one is repeated several times as if it's different, but it's the same source. I just don't think personally that it's enough. If the article is going to have 4 sections there should really be more sourcing involved in it. Plus, now the article is written in borderline prose form. It's suppose to be an encyclopedic entry that summaries the sources. Not an almost 1/1, word for word, blow by blow of a few sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The third source is cited three times in the text because each time is a different page or page combination. As for the amount of sources, three high quality sources are generally sufficient to prove notability, and if we find more high quality sources, that's a bonus. Copyvios/close paraphrasing, while definitely a serious matter, is a separate issue, and entirely irrelevant to notability. As to what you meant by "borderline prose form", I have no clue what you think that means, as all articles are supposed to written partially or wholly in prose per MOS:PROSE, other than list articles and the like. - BilCat (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I wouldn't call the second source "high quality." Most of it is extreme details on things like pricing that aren't relevant to or suited for a general audience. Maybe other things like the plane having 807 turbofans is relevant to plane fanatics, but the aim of Wikipedia isn't to be an encyclopedia for those types of people. So, if you mean "high quality" as in "people who are really into planes will enjoy this" sure, but it's not high quality in relation to helping create an article that everyone can read and understand. Most people don't know or care what a "turbofan" is. Let alone how many the plane has. Unfortunately, that type of stuff seems to be mostly what was added to the article. Maybe AfDs aren't cleanup, but if the keeps votes are based on what content was added, then it's worth noting that said content still doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards. Other articles about products aren't that way either. For instance, the F-Series article doesn't go into obtuse detail about the dimensions and weight of the trucks tire. By "borderline prose form" that's what I meant. Along with how the "development" section is written. One definition of prose is "talk tediously." I'd say that's how the section is. For instance "blended wing-fuselage layout with high enclosed volume utilisation (EVU) and offering STOL capability." Seriously, no one knows what STOL capability is or cares about it. It's just a bunch of industry buzzwords, that where probably lifted straight from the article to act as filler so people will vote keep based on "article content." Like that's an AfD standard. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also worth mention that the second source is a product advertisement. So, I'm pretty sure it's not valid for notability due to that and a lot of the "content" in the article that people are using to justify voting keep comes from it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is the "second source"? I see no product advertisements in any of the three cited. You are not mistaking an invited and editorially reviewed article for paid advertising space or sponsored "advertorial", are you? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ""Kiwis Design a Tank-Killer for Farmers." I'm saying it's an advert for a few reasons. 1. It's an anonymous "article" or it's written by a person who works for the company, I can't really tell (BTW, AfD's are usually against both of those, advertisement or not). 2. It's not really a review or anything that would be considered "neutral" fair telling of the aircraft. It's just an overlay positive listing of aircraft features with a few buzz words mixed in. The main thing that makes it seem like an advertisement is the sales hook at the end. "Interested at an estimated flyaway cost of 2.7 Million? Then write to Dave Williams, IML Group Aerospace Products Division, PO BOX 1202, Gisborne, New Zealand." "Interested?, then write to.." That sounds like the end of an advert to me. I don't know about the magazines editorial control, but I do know that plenty of magazines have "guest writers" that are either company reps or paid to write a glorified review of a product with the purpose of advertising it. Especially in the early 80s when the "article" was written. The fact that it's an anonymous piece and the bit at the end are big giveaways for me though. Otherwise, they would have been up front about who wrote it and not told us how to contact the company if we wanted to buy one or included the price. Adverts always wait until the end to provide that information also. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are way off in your suppositions. Flight was and is one of the most globally respected professional aviation journals. This piece was published in an editorial news column. Such pieces can draw their content from a wide variety of sources but are almost never signed, no matter who wrote them. What matters is that the editorial team gave it their stamp of approval. This is how it has always been done. The inclusion of contact details strikes me as a way to fill the last couple of lines on the page and slip in a wry smile at the same time; to read in anything more is paranoia. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's weird, because I was just looking at other articles in Flight and some do have the authors names, while others don't. It can "respected" all it wants, that doesn't mean everything they print is automatically acceptable to use as a source and a sources "respectability" isn't mentioned as a clause to the thing about anonymously written sources. Your the one making it about the magazine anyway though. I never said I had a problem with the magazine or that the magazine is an advertisement. There's plenty of otherwise reputable sources where certain articles don't work for notability because that particular source isn't a good one. Your free to ignore that and call me paranoid, just don't claim I have an issue with the magazine when that's not what I said. I'll also add that a lot of their other articles, or really none that I saw, used contact information in the last couple of lines of the article as a joke. There was a reason they decided to do it in this case. You might call it "being cheeky" or whatever, but I call it advertising. Otherwise, there was no point in including it. The article above that doesn't end with contact information. Neither does most, or all, of the other ones I looked at. BTW, jokes can still be advertising. So, I don't really get what your point there is about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please yourself what you call it. It may seem weird to you that short editorial news pieces are hardly ever signed and occasionally include contact details, but that's the way it is. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My argument has never been that magazines don't sometimes have anonymous short editorial pieces, its always been that Wikipedia has a problem with them being used to establish notability. That's it. So get it right and stop making this about something it isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please respect WP:CIVIL. My apologies for not realising that "That's weird, because I was just looking at other articles in Flight and some do have the authors names," was about Wikipedia, but that was hardly obvious. Dare I suggest that TL:DR may also have helped to obscure your meaning. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think at least in spirit if not in practice that WP:CIVIL would apply to reading what people wrote so your clear about what they were saying before you respond to it and not miss quoting them repeatedly. I could be wrong though, but that does seem like the civil to do anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, it didn't fly but as pointed out above there are sources. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:39, 6 July 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.