Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobson Flare


 * 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   delete. This one should probably be closed no consensus per !votes, but I feel the discussion very clearly argues that the keep !voter's rationale is all bark and no bite. Rumors of reliable sources do not help the discussion. WP:ONUS puts the responsibility on those who wish to keep the article to research the sources and include them. Further, Northamerica1000's copy/paste rationale refuting the delete !voters and article nominator's rationale is useless to this discussion and a waste of database space (yes, all 2kb of it). Had he read the nominator's statement he would've seen "Search for refs turns up only the proponent website". v/r - TP 00:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Jacobson Flare

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Spam article on a non-notable subject, virtually unheard of in aviation. Search for refs turns up only the proponent website currently in the article's external links and a few forums. The Wikipedia article seems to exist just to promote the website and the theory/technique. This article was successfully PRODed without comment in May 2011 and then restored by an Admin at the request of the original article creator. Ahunt (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as not notable, if any secondary references of notability are found it can be added as a sentence in Landing. MilborneOne (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support that - if proper refs can be found it should be a sentence in the article Landing as it is not a sufficient or large enough subject for its own article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup/despam. Articles in Flight International magazine (February 1998) and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Flight Safety magazine (July 1999) address the subject directly in great detail. These are more than trivial mentions, therefore it meets WP:GNG. The claim of "virtually unheard of in aviation" is systematic bias. It is well known in Australian aviation and taught to commercial pilots. ShipFan (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: If you have access to those refs by all means do add them to the article to show exactly which text can be supported by third party refs, as that will help our discussion here whether to delete, keep or merge into Landing and redirect. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - The presence of reliable sources within articles is not a valid argument for article deletion. Rather, Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, Section D, “Sourcing Search”, #3 states - “In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.” Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree and at the point of nomination for AfD I was unable to find any reliable refs, as the nomination notes. But that said, all we have is the rumour that a couple of sources may exist. They may not exist or they may just be passing mentions that do not confer notability or enough material for a standalone article. The two "refs" that have been recently added are just passing mentions that do not show notability. At this point in time we have an article that seems to just exist to promote a website, two refs that are vague passing mentions of the topic and an unsubstantiated statement that there maybe some paper refs available that may support some of the text in then article. I ask that if the paper refs exist then please add them as footnotes in support of the text that they actually do support and then we can see where we are then for notability. As it stands today the subject still does not seem to be notable. - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would argue that these are a little bit more than passing references. Jacobson Flare is not the topic of the Flight Safety ARIC article, but it does state that ...the Jacobson flare method seemed the most suitable to provide flare initi- ation and flare control cues. Offline, linear simulation results indicated that the Jacobson method was robust and its performance was comparable to an automatic landing system, which is more than a passing mention. The Flight International article appears, from the abstract, to use Jaconson Flare as its primary focus, and hence is definitely notable coverage (although if anyone can find the full article text, it would be useful). Yunshui (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article fails to explain in layman's terms what the technique actually is, even after visiting the subject's website I'm none the wiser. No sources/inline citations have been given, in the external links section there is a link to a self-published website, one to some kind of non-accessible paper and another that says that the technique has been mentioned in Flight International. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    19:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – The presence of reliable sources within articles is not a valid argument for article deletion. Rather, Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, Section D, “Sourcing Search”, #3 states - “In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.” Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - You have said that twice, but we still haven't seen any sources that establish notability. - Ahunt (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Northamerica1000, the sources mentioned are already in the article - quoting this bit of policy is pretty irrelevant. Ahunt - see my reply to your comment above. Yunshui (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per reliable sources stated above by user ShipFan. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep !vote withdrawn dependant on inclusion of ShipFan's sources. Merely claiming that sources exist doesn't mean they do. I'm going to see if I can locate them myself now. Sources are already in article . Yunshui (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - actually the two refs that have been added are not the ones User:ShipFan mentioned and the ones that were added are just passing mentions that do not establish notability. - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I must have my easily-confused head on toady - you're right, of course, although the proposed Flight International article appears to be the same source as the CSA one already listed. Yunshui (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources added to the article are far from passing mentions. They are articles in an academic journal and an avaiation magazine about this precise topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Here's a PDF of the July 1999 issue of Flight Safety magazine - it doesn't mention Jacobson Flare at all as far as I can see. Yunshui (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That pdf only contains pages 11 to 15 of the magazine. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So it does. Anyone got the rest of it?
 * On a related note, I've now changed the link in the article to direct to the full Flight International article, which is most definitely more than a passing mention. Yunshui (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding that link was very helpful. I have read the article carefully and as the article itself says Jacobson "stresses that he is not promoting any radical departure from current practice" and "Users affirm that it is in no way a radical departure from current practice - it defines what they are already doing, making it more precise." I think this Flight International article provides enough detail to clearly state that the "Jacobson Flare" is just a refinement of normal airplane landing techniques and confirms that it should not have its own article, but as indicated above should be a sentence or two in the Landing article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in notability guidelines does it specify that for us to have an article about a procedure it should be "a radical departure from current practice". The important thing is that there is significant coverage in reliable sources, and the information provided by those sources, such as what you quoted about this being a refinement of existing techniques, can be included in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the ref makes it clear the subject only has the potential to be a sentence or two as a stand alone encyclopedia article if the article is to avoid WP:NOTMANUAL and therefore it is not a large enough topic for a separate article from Landing. - Ahunt (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it: . Definitely only a minor passing mention, not really useful as a source at all. Yunshui (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - what I can see from my search results and what has been presented herer and what is currently in this article, is more of an attempt to get the expressions notability raised rather than a reporting of such current or historic notability. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2011 (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.