Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landing 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 SPEEDY KEEP. CallawayRox (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Landing flare

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article was proded with the reason Not really a subject worth a stand alone article just one minor part of Landing prod was removed. Most of the article has been cobbled together and filled with sources as a response to the proposed deletion but in reality a landing flare is one small non-notable part of the landing phase, having a shed full of sources doesnt make a minor term notable it just proves it is a phase of landing. The addition of a different use of the term related to Flare (pyrotechnic) is also not notable and dubious, not a common or notable term. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Landing. Not worth a standalone article but would produce a useful section in the suggested target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Merge into Landing. When you remove the unrelated info on pyrotechnic flares and other puffery, there's really not any logical reason for this to stand alone as an entry. That being said, information from here should be incorporated into the landing article, and it's certainly a sensible redirect. That being said, a merge discussion could probably be done on the talk page. --Yaksar (let's chat) 20:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Accurately and concisely covered in landing with these words: Progressive movement of the control column back will allow the aircraft to settle onto the runway at minimum speed, landing on its main wheels first in the case of a tricycle gear aircraft or on all three wheels simultaneously in the case of a conventional landing gear-equipped aircraft, commonly referred to as a "taildragger". This is known as flaring. Not much else to be said about this simple (but important!) manoeuvre. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   20:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect and Merge - The flare is one tiny part of landing an aircraft and as such belongs in the Landing article, not in a stand alone article. If this were to survive then logically we should have articles on pre-landing checks, lowering the landing gear, approach, round out, flare, hold-off, touch down, braking and taxiing clear of the runway, which are the other parts of landing an aircraft. The existing articles Final approach (aviation) and Touch-and-go landing should probably also be combined into Landing, but that is another issue. The inclusion of descriptions of pyrotechnic flares used for night landings as "landing flares" in the same article, means this article is about two subjects, an aircraft maneuver and a pyrotechnic device. This is like combining the writing instrument Pen with Pig pens, on the basis that they are related subjects. The confusion of adding two subjects to the same article seems to have come about because the aircraft maneuver is too brief a subject to warrant a stand alone article in the first place without going into WP:NOTMANUAL territory and parts of the current article are already doing that. - Ahunt (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination is not making any sense. Having a shed full of sources is exactly what makes a topic notable per the WP:GNG. Here are some more substantial sources to add to the shed:


 * The Landing Flare of Large Transport Aircraft
 * The landing flare: an analysis and flight-test investigation
 * Landing Flare Accident Reports and Pilot Perception Analysis
 * ''Effects of scenery, lighting, glideslope, and experience on timing the landing flare
 * ''The Landing Flare
 * Warden (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment all the number of sources say that phrase exists still doesnt make it notable enough for an article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * These sources don't just use the phrase, they include it in their title and discuss the matter in detail. They seem to satisfy WP:SIGCOV by a wide margin and, being from establishments like the RAE and NASA, seem quite reliable and reputable.  So how do these sources not satisfy the general notability guideline?  Please explain what sourcing would be required to satisfy you or explain your personal understanding of notability, if it is different from the guideline. Warden (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Colonel Warden; well-attested in secondary sources and popular culture. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You probably didn't even read the article. This isn't about flare (pyrotechnics), and there's nothing in this article on popular culture. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding the following quotes of statements above:
 * "minor part of landing"
 * "one small...part of the landing phase"
 * "Not much else to be said about this simple (but important!) manoeuvre."
 * "tiny part of landing an aircraft"
 * here is a quote from "Understanding the Flare":"The following is only a partial listing of variables. Pages could be, and have been written about each variable...we have pilot, airplane, surface and climatic variations of:"


 * --airspeed,
 * --approach angles,
 * --aircraft attitudes,
 * --aircraft configuration,
 * --power settings,
 * --power changes,
 * --density altitudes,
 * --height of flare,
 * --smoothness of flares,
 * --ground effects both high and low,
 * --wing lengths,
 * --wing positions on aircraft,
 * --landing gears,
 * --wind velocities,
 * --wind variations,
 * --wind angles,
 * --flap configurations,
 * --flare altitude,
 * --pilot anticipation,
 * --pilot reaction,
 * --pilot seating
 * --pilot perspective,
 * --control effect,
 * --timing,
 * --patience,
 * --runway alignment
 * --runway length
 * --runway width
 * --runway surface
 * --runway obstacles
 * --more.
 * (numbering added) Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment sorry we have to assume good faith here but I have not the foggiest idea what all that means, you need to explain the relevance to landing flare notability and why it is not just a minor phase of landing that can or is covered in Landing. Are you saying that we need articles on every tiny bit of the landing sequence like How to put the landing gear down while landing, How to look out of the window to make sure you dont hit anything, How to flare out from the approach just before you touchdown, oops the last is the article under discussion. The how to bit is a clue that leads us to NOTMANUAL. MilborneOne (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Regarding the reference to WP:NOTAMANUAL, here is what the policy states,


 * 1) Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.
 * Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge. It's a necessary and integral part of landing an airplane (or at least any one I've ever seen).  It'd be like having a separate article on Lincoln's nose.  Yes, certainly things have been said about Lincoln's nose and it might pass WP:GNG, but there's no reason to cover it outside of the context of the main article.  If the main article were really long this might be a reasonable subarticle, but as it is there's no reason to split it out.  SDY (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We have separate articles about Lincoln's bible, birthday, early life, mental health &c. And for aircraft we have numerous articles about the phases of flight including a entire category for different types of approach.  When we consider the similar process of takeoff, we find that there is a separate article for the analagous transition of rotation.  Your suggestion that separate articles are not used in such cases is therefore a falsehood, being contrary to actual evidence.  As for the issue of length, the article is new and was barely 2 days old before the nominator started to disrupt its development by trying to delete it.  Per our editing policy, a reasonable time should be allowed for expansion. Warden (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We can quote policies at each other all day, but why should a reader dealing with the landing article have to follow through another link to get information about this particular phase of it? It's patently obvious that it's a part of a broader topic.  If that article requires a split, so be it, but don't split before adding content: 16 stub articles on every nitpicking piece that might pass GNG might be compliant with policy, but a reader would rather have the 16 pieces put together into one coherent article rather than having to follow links all over the place.  SDY (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should readers have to download a wall of text to read a particular section? The trend is currently for people to read Wikipedia on the small screens of smartphones rather than the large screens of PCs.  This form factor makes it sensible to divide large topics into small pieces rather than one large one.  By the way, please note that a flare is not actually a necessary part of landing - that's another falsehood.  For example, Concorde was routinely landed without a flare.  This is the sort of factual expansion that we should be working on currently - not this absurdly disruptive deletion nomination. Warden (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Absurdly disruptive deletion nomination"? I'm just going to take this off my watchlist, it's clear that this isn't going to be a real discussion.  SDY (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:Colonel Warden has a long history of trying to disrupt AfDs by any method possible, going to so far as to move articles in the middle of AfD to new titles and rewriting the text so they are on new subjects to prevent deletion. To see what lengths he will go to "rescue" an article it may be worth reviewing the case of Articles for deletion/Aircraft design. He has also been cited at ANI before for being disruptive. I only mention this so that participants in this AfD are aware of what to expect now that this user is involved in this AfD. To let this be a surprise would be unfair to those participating here in good faith. So his labeling this AfD nomination made by an admin who is a WikiProject Aircraft participant of long standing a "absurdly disruptive deletion nomination" is well within the bounds of User:Colonel Warden's past record. - Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The case of aircraft design is indeed similar. There too we had an aviation topic of outstanding notability but the Aviation project took against it in a dog in the manger way - not doing anything with this massive topic but throwing a conniption fit when another editor dared to.  The project seems to have a proprietorial attitude to these articles, contrary to WP:OWN, and Ahunt seems to be one of the ringleaders in this.  Editors who do not have a stake in the matter should please judge by results.  I have cited multiple good sources for this topic above which demonstrate the importance and depth of the topic.  The landing flare is the most difficult and dangerous part of flying and so it has received considerable attention owing to its implication in accidents or avoidance of same.  Why would a good faith aviation editor not wish to see this topic developed?  The issue here is clearly one of editorial personalities.  I've seen it said that much of what goes on at Wikipedia is about asserting personal control of articles and here we see the process in operation.  This is not a deletion debate - nobody, not even Ahunt, agrees that the topic should deleted.  It's just a struggle for control of the topic and so should be speedily closed per WP:SK: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Warden (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know that you plan to disrupt this AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And thanks for the personal attack and lack of good faith in others. Interested to know how I want to end an editing dispute when I have not added any content! I should also assume good faith but clearly a look at the article history would show no editing dispute so that claim is clearly bogus. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: It doesn't seem like this is a subject for a deletion discussion, but a merger discussion, notwithstanding the joy of some in questioning Warden's often legitimate question as to why people want to delete sourceable verifiable content even if its obscure.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If I thought it was worth merging I would not have proposed it for deletion, please assume good faith, three sentences, a quote and non relevant pyro stuff to landing are not really merge material. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merger, redirect, whatever. Assume good faith both ways!  My point is that you aren't saying the flare move shouldn't be covered, just where.--Milowent • talkblp-r  20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is already covered in Landing. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Landing article was started with the comment "a start". But now, 8 years later, it is still graded by the Aviation project as "start class".  It does not seem that this project is delivering the goods.  My view is that there's too much bitey behaviour like this AFD and so we have strife rather than collaboration.  It is a sad waste of effort. Warden (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately with 43,000 articles in the project scope and a dedicated core of perhaps 10 editors some articles are not going to be visited often. That is off-topic but so are your comments which I read as highly negative toward the members of the aviation project. I've already given my suggestion of a redirect and don't feel the need to comment further. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   22:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge per article size and common sense. See SDY's comments for details. If someone manages to write, say 5-6 paragraphs on this, I can see a reason to split it to a new article, but not as it is now. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per Ahunt. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether this material is kept or merged, one thing that's sure is that the outcome won't involve the use of the "delete" button. Might as well close the AfD now.— S Marshall  T/C 20:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree with closing it early, let's get a firm decision here from a full AfD consultation. - Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to continue a disruptive discussion? Two editors here have a record of contributions such that if this goes to a notice board the record will show that they have an agenda.  Two editors have announced that they don't want to participate in the discussion.  Not a single editor has supported the pretense of the nomination that this is a deletion discussion, this means that this AfD can now be speedy closed under WP:Speedy keep reason #1, "nomination does not advance an argument for deletion".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * SK ground 1 doesn't strictly apply. I was proposing a WP:SNOW closure, but it's not good practice to press that when there are good faith objections, so I'll withdraw my suggestion and await the end of this discussion in due course.  I see I haven't added my own word in bold yet, so for the record it's obviously keep or merge.— S Marshall  T/C 09:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How is a speedy close using SK reason #1 anything less than strict? Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding your alternative-allowing-merge !vote, is it the intention of such a !vote to prevent development on the "landing flare" topic and removing well-sourced material from the encyclopedia? Or do you see all the material currently in the Landing flare article being moved to Landing and the continuation of adding material to Landing the same as would be the adding of material right now to Landing flare?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My position is as stated in Articles for deletion/Jacobson Flare (2nd nomination), i.e. that we really ought to have an article on Landing flare. Having said that, I would not object to the topic being covered within the landing article if that's what editors want.— S Marshall  T/C 10:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see that a merge will have that effect. At least with the existing "landing flare" article it is clear where new material should be added.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I note that no admins or non-admins have taken the leadership to shut down this disruptive discussion.  The problem of substandard nominations is not a problem unique to this AfD, I think that we need a new process in place like the New Page Patrol, perhaps called the New AfD Patrol, to tag and close substandard nominations, giving a nominator the chance to correct the nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment With only two weeks in existence, the Landing flare article has grown to be larger than the Landing article.  The political talking points have it that "Landing flare" is a small part of landing.  Let's assume for the purpose of discussion that this is true.  Meanwhile, Landing flare is a large topic, listed above are more than 31 variables involved in effecting a landing flare, each of which applies to "pilot, airplane, surface and climatic variations", and each of which has had "pages" written about it.  Research psychologists since World War II have been studying the cues used by pilots in deciding when to begin the flare maneuver.  Studies exist associating landing flare issues and accidents.  Google reports that there are more than 1000 books that include the phrase "landing flare".  Closely related terms include "flare path", "flare-out", and "flare cut-off point".  The landing flare is a non-trivial function/algorithm whose execution remains a challenge both for pilots, and for computer engineers designing Autoland.  So calls to merge a large topic into another topic in which it is only a small part is destined to result in conflict, not only because of the practical difficulty, but in part because there is a hidden agenda in these talking points to not allow all of the material to be merged.  In contrast with the analysis of Lincoln's nose on Mount Rushmore, a healthier comparison is Heart and Ventricle.  IMO, Landing flare should not be deleted or merged any more than Ventricle should be deleted or merged.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment We know that in 1922 the term "landing flare" in the context of aviation was an aerial candle on a parachute, also known as a type of "bomb".  A 1932 reference exists for the phrase "landing 'flare' maneuver".  Thus we know, that in 1932, the landing flare maneuver could be accomplished in the dark with the use of landing flares.  So both usages of the term are closely associated with aviation, both are closely associated with the function of landing, and both have their origin within 20 years of each other in the early 20th century.  Yet we can also anticipate that merging the material from the Landing flare article will lead to pressure to remove encyclopedic material.  The alternative is to leave this issue at the Landing flare article, instead of "merging" conflict to the Landing article.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment What are the options for a merge?  Currently there is literally no mention of "landing flare" in the Landing article, except for the "See also" link to the Landing flare article.  The Wikiproject can and should add any appropriate material to the Landing article.  While they are about it, they could work on the theory that comes from the definition in the lede of the article that parachutists are "animals".  After that cleanup, I expect that they would discover that they didn't want to merge all of the material from Landing flare.  Given that the "Landing" article is not structured to support an integrated merge, it seems that the only option with an administrative order that the material be merged, is to drop the entire existing article at the end of the Landing article.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep reason #1, see WP:Speedy keep.  The nomination does not advance an argument for deletion.  The only phrase that comes close is the use of the word "non-notable" in the clause "landing flare is one small non-notable part of the landing phase".  What is a "non-notable part"?  Is it material that it is ok to mention in the landing article but shouldn't have a stand-alone article because it doesn't satisfy WP:N?  But material suitable for the Landing article is encyclopedic material, a deletion argument must explain both why the material and the topic are objectionable such that they need to be deleted, so this does not stand as a coherent deletion argument, and making an incoherent argument is not advancing an argument.  This interpretation is consistent with the statement of the nominator here that the material in the Landing flare article is "nothing that cant  or is already in the Landing article."


 * Regarding the technical requirements for the speedy keep, no editors have agreed with the premise of the nomination for deletion, so a speedy keep remains in order (and please review WP:Speedy keep if there is any question about this statement). And in this case it remains appropriate given the crossover considerations from the "speedy keep" guideline given at WP:Deletion process, "Nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption (this includes editor harrassment)."  After I above documented a list of 31 variables that are a part of landing flare analysis to refute the idea that landing flare is a small topic; nominator responded, "sorry we have to assume good faith".  It doesn't take much analysis to know that this response was not a product of the force of reason.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not consider it indisputable enough for a speedy keep. regardless of my own opinion on the article, and I think further suggestions in that direction would impede the actual purpose here, which is a discussion on what to do with the article.  DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the key word in the above analysis is whether the nomination was "solely" to provide a forum for disruption. Yet look at the recent ruling at Deletion_review/Log/2011_October_20, which says, "Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed", which is a relaxed guideline that applies.  As for your suggestion to proceed as if we are still discussing articles for deletion, your opinion carries weight, and I'm not trying to prevent that path, but it leaves open the question as to if or when we are going to put more corrective feedback into the AfD nomination process.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment have you any evidence for the nomination was "solely" to provide a forum for disruption or is that a personal attack that needs to be withdrawn? MilborneOne (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's some evidence. Earlier this year, there was another attempt at an article about this topic: Flare (aviation).  You participated in discussion about it and agreed that redirection to Landing was appropriate.  But in this new case, you tried prodding the article while it was being developed.  When multiple editors objected to the proposed deletion, demonstrating that there was no consensus, you then made another attempt to delete it - this AFD.  Warring over deletion rather than seeking the sort of compromise which you had agreed to earlier does not seem constructive.  Warden (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I do not agree with your comments, I am happy to be consistent and suggest that this is redirected to Landing rather than be deleted or merged. MilborneOne (talk) 14:04, 24 October 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.