Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NACA Report No. 133


 * 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. There is a consensus below that this content is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It might find a better home at Wikisource, but there is no particular consensus to transwiki. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

NACA Report No. 133

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Dubious notability. Naca may be notable, and the writer may be notable, and specific bits of aircraft may be notable, but I doubt this report is. bobrayner (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I doubt its notable, as the nominator said. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia does not necessarily have an article about every tech report ever written. No evidence it is a notable tech report. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Edison (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many other articles of this type here. Should those all be included in this AfD? → Σ  τ  c . 03:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed a stream of similar articles and decided to "test the water" with this one first. Mass deletion nominations can often be very disruptive and dramatic (not because getting rid of large volumes of problematic content is inherently a bad thing, but because en.wiki's processes aren't perfect) . On the other side of the scale, I don't believe these articles need urgent deletion - they're not BLP violations, spam, pov-pushing &c - so I'd hoped to gauge community consensus on one example article before AfDing a big list of them. Also, an AfD is always painful for the article creator, but if they hope to make some adjustments which might stave off deletion, one AfD is a good "heads up" of what changes the community might expect. (I was involved in one mass-AfD in which the creator was very distressed because they felt that some changes to the articles might allow a compromise solution, but 7 days wasn't long enough to change all the articles).
 * Reasonable editors might disagree with this "pilot project" approach. If you think it's best to AfD all of them immediately, I will not stop you (and I'm likely to !vote "delete" on most of them). bobrayner (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Another problem with all these reports is that they are mainly copy-paste material from the reports without proper attribution to the authors and source. I notified the author of these articles on NACA reports, but he continues creating new ones (without proper attributions). In the present form they are plagiarism. -- Crowsnest (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The guy is absolutely flooding the project with these things. Might as well roll them all up into a bulk delete right now. &mdash;BurnDownBabylon 01:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Unfortunately the article creator hasn't responded yet - except to try removing the AfD tag from the article. bobrayner (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - unless transwiki to Wikisource is an option? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fix - There are two different problems here. The article is about Sparrow, S.W.; NACA Report 135 Performance of B. M. W. 185-horsepower airplane engine, not 133 as given in the article title, which would apply to Munk, Max M.; NACA Report 133 The tail plane, so this article needs to be moved anyhow. NACA report 135 addresses the post-war study by the US of the best German aero engine in WWI. The work is interesting, and in the public domain. It is cited in works as late as 1985 (ISBN 9780262700269). Proper attribution is of course required, but that is not cause to delete it. LeadSongDog come howl!  07:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikisource would make some sense, and material would still be available for a Stanwood W. Sparrow or Max Michael Munk article (bio or bibliography). Any reason we can't transwiki? LeadSongDog come howl!  06:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So it would be the abstract from the report that would be wikisourced? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, both the abstract and the full text should be . Why restrict it to the abstract? LeadSongDog come howl!  23:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (and all its siblings) not really encyclopedic might be better suited to wikisource. MilborneOne (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails General Notability Guidline if no-one has written about the report. (eg describing its influences on aviation). GraemeLeggett (talk) 00:08, 25 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.