Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unpowered aircraft


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Unpowered aircraft

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

POV WP:Content fork of glider. FAA and FAI and other sources state that they define glider in a wider way than preferred by a small number of editors, this article was essentially the result of a cabal trying to impose a non neutral pov on the wikipedia and this lead to the creation of this content fork.

faa-h-8083-13.pdf states:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines a glider as a heavier-than-air aircraft that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces, and whose free flight does not depend on an engine.

Additionally the entire concept of "unpowered aircraft" is unreferenced to any reliable source; it was created from thin air. Under the policy WP:VERIFIABLE: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Please vote Delete or Merge.

- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The Unpowered aircraft article is older than the Glider article. If anything, the Glider article is the WP:CFORK. The two should probably be merged, but that's not an AfD issue. -Atmoz (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an AFD issue if one is a content fork of the other. And I'm sorry but that's not correct, the glider article is the older one, originally there was simply glider and I split the article into 'glider' (this one) and a subarticle sailplane (subarticles are not content forks) but an admin (quite wrongly) messed the article history around and rescoped the sailplane article with the with the result you have here; it makes it look that it's been here for ages, but it didn't exist as of 1st December 2008. As it stands at the moment the definition of both articles are absolutely identical.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be arguing that they should be merged, but voted keep- a keep is not a merge.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Both article have existed since 2002. It's likely that each contain info the other one hasn't got. I would use the definition by an official aviation body to crunch any content disputes. A merge is possible, but should be planned carefully. - Mgm|(talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As of one month ago there was only one which was about sailplanes, but called glider.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny. I used the edit history tool to determine the dates. - Mgm|(talk) 10:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This article seems to have more of an emphasis on the fact that the aircraft uses no power once in flight.Critical Chris (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Having two articles with different emphasises on a single topic isn't permitted by NPOV. Wikipedia articles have to include all points of view, so both articles end up having to contain the same information, since the FAA define 'glider' to be unpowered aircraft the two articles end up the same. The only reason that this article exists is because other editors are trying to create and maintain a content fork about what a glider is, but that is explicitly forbidden by NPOV. It's like trying to maintain two articles on 'different topics' automobile and car(!)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Using the FAA definition only is very US biased. You're doing the NPOV there. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FAI also make more or less the same definition though, and they're not American, also the CAA in the UK more or less define glider the same way. That glider = unpowered aircraft is not really in doubt, and that definition is notable in both glider and unpowered aircraft and makes the two articles a content fork. Under the NPOV rules, the two terms are synonymous and must be merged into one article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * unpowered aircraft =/= glider, from my comment below. There is not reason not to have an "unpowered aircraft" article, since there are non-gliders as well. That is a editing/rewrite problem, not a deletion problem. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep ; The article was written by Wolfkeeper on 17:38, 9 December 2008, so it appears to be a content fork, since before that date, according to page history, it was just a redirect, from 2002 onwards, until Wolfkeeper modified it. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's not correct. The glider article (more or less as it stands today) but with a vague introduction was the only article on 8th December 2008, I renamed it to sailplane and created a new article called glider to cover the superset. That isn't a content fork. An admin then messed around with history (essentially retroactively rename that version to 'unpowered aircraft') and rescoped the articles to create the content fork we have today.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no edit history at glider or ... can an administrator look into this? As it is now, it looks like Wolfkeeper content forked unpowered aircraft. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It may give that impression, but the current broken article structure is due to Jmcc150 (who is a sailplane instructor that you may imagine prefers the term 'glider' to be solely applied for his kind of aircraft and is quite willing throw out the FAA definition to maintain this in the wikipedia- unbiased POV? In no way.) and Rlandmann who is an admin. Jmcc150 rescopes the article which was at glider (aircraft) to be about unpowered aircraft here (at the time the articles were glider (aircraft) and sailplane-which is one specific sort of glider, in the same way that hang glider is) and then Rlandmann with his admin priviledges moved all the articles around and essentially broke the history of sailplane (more than one edit, but a key one is here and he also moved sailplane to glider and added a redirect.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since currently has no history either, it appears the history is at unpowered aircraft, so you can't delete it, it contains the edit history. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a request on WP:ANI to fix this currently.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the term glider is synonymous with unpowered aircraft, a paper aeroplane for example is a glider. The FAA define glider in that way, as do most other sources. This means that an unbiased article at glider makes this one a content fork.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The bigger problem is that there are unpowered aircraft that aren't gliders. Helium balloons are unpowered and aren't gliders, and have been used by balloonists. Unpowered autogyros have been used as reconnaissance and artillery observation platforms by warships. Manned kites have been used as observation platforms by armies and weather bureaus. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The exact definition used by the FAA of glider and sailplanes are:

''The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines a glider as a heavier-than-air aircraft that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces, and whose free flight does not depend on an engine. The term glider is used to designate the rating that can be placed on a pilot certificate once a person successfully completes required glider knowledge and practical tests.''

''Another widely accepted term used in the industry is sailplane. Soaring refers to the sport of flying sailplanes, which usually includes traveling long distances and remaining aloft for extended periods of time.''


 * This appears to me to be at least NPOV- one that all the evidence suggest that Jmcc150 is determined to exclude from the wikipedia. You'll note that a sailplane is a subset of a glider and this 'unpowered aircraft' nonsense is defined absolutely nowhere by any notable source; and as you say, would apply to lighter than air aircraft as well.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "unpowered aircraft" is a larger encompassing descriptive term of all aircraft that are not powered. Having such an article should not be a problem, since it's a descriptive title. The problem only involves making sure the content coverage is appropriate. Thus gliders are a specific case of unpowered aircraft, and sailplanes are a specific case of gliders. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In actual fact it's worse than that, it's not a subset/superset thing as not all gliders as defined by the various authorities are unpowered (the CAA defines a powered hang glider to be a glider and there's motor gliders and all sorts of other cases which are gliders but aren't unpowered), and the FAA specifically define glider separately to sailplane. There's also no definition of what 'unpowered aircraft' means in the article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting, I always thought motorized gliders were classified as verylights 76.66.198.171 (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen them also described as ultralights. But the fundamental point here is that the editors involved here are trying to enforce a single, sort of hierarchical POV on the wikipedia, one that is not justified by the bulk of the sources. The real world is more like Venn diagrams.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. Long term, I don't have any strong opinions on whether this stays or goes. At the very least, its long history needs to be merged preserved somewhere ( probably Glider, where it came from originally ). The various disputes over Glider and its scope really need to be resolved before the future of this article can be decided.

Wolfkeeper, please stay try to stay cool and civil. Accusations like "the result of a cabal trying to impose a non neutral pov on the wikipedia" are not helpful. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recommend merging the histories. Since the articles both have existed simultaneously for a significant amount of time, the overlap in edits would mess up the history of said period. In this case a redirect, or moving to talk, then redirect to preserve the history is better. - Mgm|(talk) 10:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree; I didn't realise until just now that Glider seems to have such a long history in its short life. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree; this article has existed for only about 3 weeks(!) The history prior to of 'this' article that was exclusively that of the glider article history; the glider articles history is in completely the wrong place; and magically starts about then. Possibly Rlandmann did it this way by mistake; but there's no case for keeping it like this.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep for nowThis is already being discussed on the talk pages of unpowered aircraft and glider. Unpowered aircraft is an attempt to describe the common features of some very different aircraft. These range from a 850kg aircraft travelling at 280km/h to a man hanging from a parachute. I agree the name is not elegant but it is consistent with the categorisation in the aircraft categorisation box. I suppose a name based on categorisation is inevitable, given that the name 'glider' is already correctly assigned to the object most commonly called a glider. Please note that 'glider' is also used by the governing body for air sports, the FAI, when distinguishing this type from hang glider and paraglider. Consequently there are three articles on glider, hang gliding and paragliding which contain much of the detailed information about these three types. It is only the common features that should be in 'unpowered aircraft', so it should be a fairly short article. All three types use rising air, they all obey the same laws of physics and may have some ancient ancestry. (There were some early flights before George Caley's machine. They may have used early parachutes or might just have been survivable plummets, but the type of unpowered aircraft is uncertain.) I can only describe Wolfkeeper's actions as precipitate. Yesterday he suggested merging this article and within hours started merging it before any discussion. Deletion has now been proposed by him. At least now this will give us all a chance to discuss this rationally. I do not have a great attachment to 'unpowered aircraft' and have proposed that a method by which its contents could be reallocated to other articles. However its removal should not be used as a pretext to change the scope of the glider article, which is the true motive behind this proposal and so it should stay for the moment. JMcC (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mainly as nomination appears to be WP:POINT to continue and support debate at Glider. An AfD is not another vehicle for a content dispute. An unpowered aircraft is not a glider and is a term used by aviation authorities so is notable enough its have its own article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, that this is a term used by aviation authorities is completely unreferenced right now and over the entire 3+ week history of the article since it was split off of glider.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally you state that unpowered aircraft are not gliders, but Jmcc was the one that did the split, from glider, and he has indicated above that he did it to put gliders in it. Are you seriously claiming that this isn't a content fork?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if there's a valid article to be made here (covering balloons perhaps), this so isn't it, and I cannot think of a worse way to start such an article nor do I find any evidence that Jmcc didn't consider it to be purely a dumping ground for his POV definition of glider.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean, read the article he edited here: what is it about? Gliders. Different sorts of gliders. This is not, and never was an article on unpowered aircraft.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I find it interesting that a legal definition is quoted as part of this nomination when a legal definition offered as an example in a recent discussion on a similar subject was rejected by the nominator with the words: In my experience legal definitions usually tend to be unreasonably general or unreasonably specific or both. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is using a notable, reliable source in the wikipedia really in any way surprising? If so that's pretty damn sad.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article is a super-set of glider, which is in turn a sub-set of unpowered aircraft and therefore both should be retained. This AfD is disingenuous method of attempting to deal with something that should be done via building consensus on the talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I honestly do find it to be a content fork; but I certainly understand your point about consensus, but sometimes other people are not interested in consensus, and this article was not created on a consensus either; and you may or may not consider, as I, that this article is a disingenuous way of dealing with lack of consensus also.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Sorry to go against the grain, however this is really kind of a lumping together of things according to what they don't have -- in this case an engine. Both the Space Shuttle and paper airplanes are included. It's kind of like an article on "Animals without tails" which would include humans and starfish. Redddogg (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (The Space Shuttle has an engine to get up there but not to get down. That's why it's in the article.) Redddogg (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and googling "unpowered aircraft" gets (for google) very few hits and no really substantive references at all. WP:VERIFIABLE states quite clearly that: if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. (emphasis mine)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I count 13 citations in this article including one from NASA and two from the FAI, are they not reliable sources? Bearing in mind that no Wikipedia article is perfect to everyone's satisfaction and that all Wikipedia articles are a work in progress I suggest that this article is allowed to develop without hindrance. AfD is a last resort, I see no Expert-subject template in the article or Refimprove, adding those templates would be more constructive. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  20:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well AFDs are where you discuss how policy interacts with the article, not simply vote on it. None of those references actually define the overall topic though, which is what the policy says, and when I looked I was completely unable to find a clear definition either. Indeed, I got few hits. That's not a good sign. And the article is going to, at best end up an uncomfortable mixture of balloons and gliders of one form or another. Is there really any point to this?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, you started it. From my experience of AfDs an admin counts the number of 'keeps', 'deletes' or 'merges' after five days, does what is required and then closes the debate, sounds like a form of voting to me. How do you know how the article will end up, one editor may chose to completely re-write it and move it to a better title at the same time, that is allowed and happens all the time, I believe that you have lost the concept of how a Wiki works. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   23:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rewrites and renaming are not allowed in Aviation articles; statism is the new order.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary, since 1 January 2009 the aircraft project alone has produced 70 articles and navigation templates, all of which are in the state of being assessed, categorised and improved through copy editing, content expansion and referencing through mutual collaboration involving like-minded editors. The aviation project now oversees almost 26,000 articles, in my experience editors in this project are meticulous, pride themselves on self-policed high standards and are open to discussion at all times. 'Problem' aircraft articles are highlighted and improved wherever possible via the 'to do' list. It is obvious that they can not be all fixed overnight. I am aware that this is drifting off topic but I felt the need to support the very hard work done by many unthanked editors in the aviation project against derogatory comments. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   00:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I am in the middle of a large rewrite of an old aviation article right now and just moved an aviation article to a new name very recently. Patently not the case that "Rewrites and renaming are not allowed in Aviation articles; statism is the new order" - Ahunt (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I find, with regret that I need to repeat this point. There's no definition of what unpowered aircraft is anywhere that I could find, and I looked quite hard. And I can't think of any reason that anybody would have to define this term either. So in the end the article just ends up as a grab-bag list of things that have fairly randomly been described as 'unpowered aircraft' by some source at some time. And there's also the issue that having a random grab bag list doesn't preclude the need to have material elsewhere as well; if something is in scope elsewhere it's still in scope elsewhere. I was seriously thinking of changing my vote but for Reddog's point. This is part of an attempt to map a hierarchy onto all the different types of aircraft, but hierarchical categories just don't map on well to the way real aircraft actually operate in the real world. It's easy to see that aircraft plausibly move from being powered to unpowered within a single flight. Is the gimli glider an unpowered aircraft? It plausibly was when it crashed, but is it actually considered so? Theres's a difference between plausible so and it being so. In the absence of a workable scope, I can't see how this article is useful to the wikipedia or anyone else, and I continue to recommend it become a redirect to Aircraft in accordance with verifiability.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. While there are some sources that utilize the term in passing, I was unable to locate any sources which discuss or define this term. (interesting how the fork stole the history though) - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:05, 19 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.