Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Avro Vulcan Adventure


 * 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   merge to Avro Vulcan.  MBisanz  talk 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Avro Vulcan Adventure

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There's no evidence in the article or from a Google search of 'The Avro Vulcan Adventure + review' (see ) that this book meets the relevant notability standard WP:BK. The Google search only returns a few links on the book, and all of them appear to be routine pages on bookseller websites. The article's breathless tone (eg, "based on facts and with unique photographs") suggests that this may have been created as an advertisement for the book. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   —Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I bought this book and created the article in good faith and not "an advertisement for the book". The photographs are unique and there are also facts and information in this book that is not in other Avro Vulcan books. Also Nick-D should have placed an AfD nomination of The Avro Vulcan Adventure on my talk page. This they did not do, so they don't seem to be following Wiki rules. I also have bought and read The Nuremberg Raid (book), which already has an article, and I thought I had approached the subject of the The Avro Vulcan Adventure well and correct for a Wikipedia article.--SteveKSmith (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I followed Nick-D link, and have found at Review at Waterstones someone else you has found the same as me.--SteveKSmith (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not notifying you on your talk page, though while it is good practice and something I should have done, it isn't a requirement (see: WP:AFDHOWTO). I did see that and a handful of other similar links to online bookstores, but non-professional customer reviews on booksellers' websites such as the Waterstones website, Amazon.com, etc, aren't "multiple, non-trivial published works" as needed to meet WP:BK and this guideline explicitly states that the existence of a listing on online bookstores isn't by itself an indication of notability given the vast number of books they often list. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I got 42 hits for this search on google "Avro Vulcan Adventure" review, so the google search mentioned above must have been done wrong. LK (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Those look like the same search results I got - I don't think that any of those links are the kind of coverage needed to meet WP:BK as they're online bookshops and discussion forums. If you can find some professional reviews and the like in there I'd be happy to be proven wrong though. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just gone through the links, and don't see any reviews except for customer reviews. LK (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Although we all obviously believe the article was created in good faith, the existence google hits for customer reviews does not warrant it inclusion in the encyclopaedia, otherwise we'd have loads of articles about books. Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't have any opinion to give about the disposition of this article, but "otherwise we'd have loads of articles about books" is a pretty weak argument for deletion. Don't we want to have loads of articles about books? Loads of them are notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, basically. Books should be used as references, we should only have articles about notable ones (i.e War & Peace). This book is merely a collection of data about very notable aeroplane. Also it hasn't escaped my attention that you came to this AFD, announced you weren't !voting and then just commented on my !vote, all the while ignoring the more relevant part of it (the existence google hits for customer reviews does not warrant it inclusion in the encyclopaedia). Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What on earth do you mean by that? AfD is a discussion about whether an article meets policies and guidelines for inclusion, not a vote, so it's perfectly valid for me not to give a vote but to point out when an argument made is not based on policy or guidelines. I agree totally that we should only have articles about notable books, per WP:BK, but my point is that there are "loads" of notable books, so we should have "loads" of articles. This is probably not one of them, but that doesn't validate that part of your argument. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Putting a "!" before the word "vote" is a socially accepted way of saying "vote" on wiki (see here for more details).


 * I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. No one is suggesting notable books shouldn't have articles, if you have misunderstood my original post then I can only state clearly that I think notable books articles should stay and non-notable books articles should go, simple. Ryan 4314   (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm afraid I must disagree with Nick-D here. Normally I swing into such debates with a delete (rightly deserved I might add), but here I must place "Keep", if not a Strong Keep ? This book is very, very interesting, and I did not know that wonderful aircraft, the Avro Vulcan, was used as an Air Ambulance. I have not read that anywhere. Putting that to one side, the book on other merits is worthy of inclusion I would have thought, I don't feel that google (I put up my hand and admit I use it a fair bit), must be relied on for everything or else a fair amount of Wiki material will go. The author is an established author, I have his Action Stations books, well thumbed from constant reference, and I'm amazed that no one has bothered to include this series on the Wikipedia, as it was quite a task involving several authors. I admit that I don't have the Avro Vulcan book, though I do love this aircraft. I agree with Ryan4314 about loads of articles about books not being on the Wikipedia, but I believe this book should be on. Also SteveKSmith must not take things too personally as Nick-D is merely putting forward the article for debate and debates are healthy. It does not mean it will be deleted and under the circumstances I don't think it will, or at least it would be nice if it wasn't.--BSTemple (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BSTemple, you can't !vote keep then merge, so I've struck the above !vote in the assumption you'd want your most recent !vote (the merge) to count. If you want it the other way around, feel free to rectify. Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree this sounds like a very interesting read (I shall probably pick up a copy myself), this article is about the book, not it's contents. By this I mean; interesting information such as "the Vulcan was used as an Air Ambulance" should be added to the Vulcan article with this book being used as a source. It makes more sense this way, only the relevant data is kept and is easier to find. Ryan 4314   (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I concede that is a very good solution by Ryan4314, on view of the evidence and sound logic. I see SteveKSmith has put the Ambulance on the Vulcan article, but I fear he is too enthusiastic and still has to grasp what the Wikipedia is, yes give reference to your source, but in the correct way. I will put the section back in Vulcan article, but shall edit it, I also feel in the edit there should be no Wiki link to the Article of the book.--BSTemple (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from the over-enthusiasm of the entry the Medevac events referenced by the book and put in the Vulcan article were deleted as trivia. I agree with that deletion - it is trivia and not significant enough to be included in the Vulcan article. In reality just about every aircraft type ever flown as been used for medevac, even the Cessna 150 - is is not worth mentioning. I don't think this is much of a solution. - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but we should discuss content on the Vulcan talk page. Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ryan, trivia like that really doesn't belong in the article see WP:TRIVIA, I deleted it as it is not significant enough to merit inclusion. Justin talk 12:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: There is no indication that asserts the notability of this book and every indication that this article is essentially nothing more than marketing. To be more clear - this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability policy in that there are no reliable third party references cited. Without those the article fails the notability test and must be deleted. - Ahunt (talk)
 * Delete: Whether or not this book is good or not is irrelevant. Because this book fails WP:N, it should not remain an article. --  Darth Mike  ( join the dark side ) 14:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete and Merge By our own guidelines the page should be deleted as it is currently not notable. However, the information is good, and I'm inclined to say let it stay ignore all rules. If the page is deleted, I suggest moving the information to another page on a more notable topic. Perhaps a page on the entire series? or a page on the author? LK (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Avro Vulcan where the book may be useful as a source. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge I agree with Colonel Warden and LK, and as such have merged what information I can into the relevant articles. This should make everyone happy and is the best solution I can see. I'm sure SteveKSmith will see that too. I have also kept a copy of the article and shall see what else is possible to edit to more relevant articles. Anyway, if in the future it should meet Wikipedia's notability policy, it can always then be put up again. I would just say that I like the book cover, a little different to the norm.--BSTemple (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment While the above two entries are labeled "merge" I believe that they are really proposing that the book itself be used as a reference in the other article rather than a merger of articles. It really isn't possible to merge an article about a book with an article about an aircraft type. - Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Can I please remind people that we only add books as sources to an article if they've been used for the article. Wikipedia is not a repository of lists of reference material.  This does not mean composing an edit taking trivia from this book simply to shoe horn it in.  Justin talk 18:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I had in mind a merge of the material into the author's page, or a page about the book series that this book is from (is it from a book series?). I agree that it would be inappropriate to merge the page into the page on the Vulcan, except perhaps as a short footnote. LK (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Article of its own right fails notability, whilst it may have some merit as interesting trivia, the odd occasion it was impressed to transport people in an emergency is not evidence of a casevac role. The rest of the information is already in the Vulcan article.  Would people please read WP:TRIVIA and cease shoe horning edits into the Vulcan article that have no place there.  Over the last couple of days I've seen several editors shoe horning edits into the article that aren't written as per WP:MOS and are solely designed to add this book as a ref.  Again this is againts WP:MOS.  Please stop.   Justin talk 17:21, 29 January 2009 (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.