Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TR-3B Stryker

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 of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 12:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TR-3B Stryker

Homemade flight sim aircraft. That's it: a non-notable fake aircraft for a PC flight simulator, created by a group of hobbyists with pretensions ("Made by Aeroworks-Technologies...", which was the subject of a speedy deletion today. Calton | Talk 13:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Is there some way of speedying this? Proto||type 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. PJM 15:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A homemade aircraft for flight sim 2004 that is extremely popular/notable at 3000+ dowloads from just one website. Made by one of the most notable concept developers for flight sim. Whats wrong with listing a concept Flight Sim aircraft? Not so different from the X-02 model under fictional aircrft in my opinion. The TR-3B is based on a rumored aircraft in the real world named the TR-3A Black Manta. This artical has been aronund sine 2005. If its the fact that I added a snip about who made it, I can simply delete it if thats the main problem here. Elgae Nacirema 04:03, 31 March 2006
  • 1) The fact that an article flew under the radar (as it were) says nothing about its value or whether it should be kept.
  • 2) The "this other article exists, so mine should too" argument is one of the most common -- and least successful -- arguments seen around here. It's also irrelevent: we're talking about this article, not any other. --Calton | Talk 05:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I believe he is just pointing out you are pretty well going after the same thing my friend. If you're going after this, you might as well go after all the other fictional aircraft. --MongoComment actually by 24.152.131.230 (talk • contribs), 05:55, 31 March 2006

---

• Keep I agree with the above statement. 3000 plus downloads seems pretty notable. As a designer of Flight Simulator Aircraft I must say EVERY aircraft is notable and unique, even if it has been modelled after a real world aircraft. To have a wikipedia aritcle on a unique aircraft that MAY BE real, but has been modelled in a flight simulator constitutes a unique and notable a)article and b) aircraft. To say that the aircraft is not unique is to say that every fictional plane or aircraft based on rumor is not unique...and obviously this is not the case at hand. Although I see how bandwidth may be an issue, I do not agree that the stipulation of non-notable applies. That would be the equivilent of saying a hand built model is not unique, and each modeled aircraft for flight simulator is painstaikingly modeled part by part. ASSUMING the black manta is not real (which it may or may not be, I don't know) just because there is an article about an aircraft that was made for a flight simulator is in itself unique. Therefore the aircraft itself is not entirely unique, however, it is notable that a designer went through the effort to build an aircraft. I will also add that this aircraft is worth of distinction and has already won an award from another design group. I have adequately shown that this aircraft is both unique and worthy of distinction and excellence. As per your guildlines for deletion, all of the titles of non-notablility, non-excellence, and not worthy of distinction do not apply.MachJok 04:42, 31 March 2006 User's first edit, AND NOT THE LAST
  • I have adequately shown that this aircraft is both unique and worthy of distinction and excellence. Ah, making an argument and judging the quality of the argument, both done simultaneous. No no, one person makes the argument and others decide the argument's validity, that's how it works, otherwise it's just talking to yourself.
  • And as for our guidelines -- which according to you, you understand better than anyone else here despite this being your very first edit -- look at Wikipedia:Notability (software) for some hints as to why this very minor piece of a minor hobby is up for deletion. --Calton | Talk 05:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Calton, I claim not to be an expert on wikipedia, my username maybe new but I have been using wikipedia for years. I do not appreciate your assumption that I believe myself to be a self proclaimed expert, and would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth thank you. MachJok 05:51, 31 March 2006
    • I put no words in your mouth, merely observing your (sadly common among new posters here) behavior. As for your "self-proclaimed" -- well, you had no trouble proclaiming rhetorical victory based on your interpretation of policy. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Carlton, I proclaimed nothing, I showed objectively how this article fufills everyone of wikipedia's stipulations. And you still assume that I am new....I am not.MachJok 08:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I proclaimed nothing, I showed objectively... Claim and contradiction, separated only by a comma. One rarely sees that. --Calton | Talk 08:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• KeepThis aircraft, although fictionary, has a significant impact on the users of Flight Simulators. This aircract is, to my knowledge, a commonly "flown" aircraft in the world of flight simulator. People deserve to know the origins of the aircraft; similar to the reason why people need to know about the orgin of the United States just on a smaller level. If this article is deleted, it might fluster up some commotion within the Flight Simulator community. There are also lesser articles on Wiki which i will leave unamed that make this article stand out beyond belief. Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts and concerned regarding this article. kflyer89 05:35, 31 March 2006 User's first edit

---

You can't judge the aircrafts popularity based on google hits my friend, mainly because there are only a few MAJOR flight simulator sites where you can download such things, Flightsim.com, and simviation.com are the two most major sites to download aircraft for flight sim, and if you were to look up the aircrafts stats just at flightsim.com you would see that there are 3000+ individual downloads... If you need proof of the aircrafts downloads, then go to www.FlightSim.com and do a .zip search on tr3bjt.zip. At the time of posting this it had Downloads: 3226 --MongoComment actually by 24.152.131.230 (talk • contribs), 05:58, 31 March 2006

---

• Here are the notability guildlines:

Software is considered to be notable enough for inclusion if it meets any of the following criteria:

1. The software has been verifiably the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer. A single story in major news media or an independently written book would be sufficient, but multiple works would be needed for lower-profile sources.

2. The software is/was innovative, significant, or influential in some specific way, and this is verifiable from reliable sources independent of the software developer.

3. The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor.

4. The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Fedora Core or Debian, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer. Note that for very large distributions such as Debian, some of its packages are not widely used; use judgement or statistics such as the Debian Popularity Contest.

5. The product is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization. (ibid.)

6. The software has won an independent award or honor, including mention as one of the top ten applications in its class in an independent published list. Notes:* Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden. It is indeed easy for an author to overestimate the notability of their work. If such work is notable, someone else will eventually start an article about it.

- * The number of users has been considered for some times as a criteria for notability; however, a fixed number does not make sense when evaluating different kinds of software, and agreeing on a specific number does not seem feasible.

- * Software that can be proved to have a consistent number of users (beside the creator(s) and their friends) but do not meet the above criteria may be merged into the article describing their main functionality (for example, JoeBloggsDiskEditor may be merged into a section of disk editor.)

1) does not apply, this work is not trivial. you may find the aircraft at www.flightsim.com, www.simviation.com/aeroworks and others.

2) does not apply, 3000+ downloads plus numerous repaints is influetial, as no degree of influentiality has been required this does not apply.

3) This is a core product for this developer. Not everyone is a bigshot like M$. size of a developer is irrelevant. unless the name adds profit, since this is NON-PROFIT it is irrelevant

4) Are you telling me that 'ALL of the fictional aircraft are part of a "major operating system distribution"??

5) Not all of the fictional aircraft are well known...sorry this stipulation is irrelevant

6) THE SOFTWARE HAS WON AN INDEPENDANT AWARD see http://www.motisvirtualjetdesign.com/CDAAWARDS.htm

As I have shown the article follows wikipedia's guildlines. MachJok 06:09, 31 March 2006

Ah, yes, more unilateral declarations of victory. However:

1) "Because I said so"? Less than a convincing argument for saying it's not trivial. See Begging the question. And finding a piece of software on a website doesn't a priori make it non-trivial.

2) That barely rises to the level of assertion, let alone argument. How many copies of Flight Simulator have been sold? What percentage is 3,000 downloads of that? Why does such a remarkably influential thing like this get only 18 unique Google hits?

3) You somehow left off the adjective "notable" from "software developer". Hmmm.

4) Irrelevent/inapplicable.

5) Clearly fails, though not really applicable.

6) Ah yes, the "Team MoTIS" award. Clearly very major, despite that fact that "Team MoTIS" gets only 21 unque Google hits and '''www.motisvirtualjetdesign.com''' shows NO incoming links according to Google.

• Your comments fail.

1) This article also fufills the first criterium.

2) the number of FS2K4 copies sold does not reflect anything, every plane is influential in someway and once again no definition of influential has been given.

3)Are you saying that I have to be a big wig to post my stuff on an open source encyclopedia? hmmmmmm I thought encyclopedia's where about expanding the knowledge of the human race and sharing it with others.

4)you are right #4 is totally inapplicable to either argument

5)No generalization....on any of the fictional aircraft

6)The Motis award fufills the stipulation for an independant award. web engines are not reliable for "unique" or incoming links.

Re-rebuttal

1)Objectively speaking it fufills the terms of deletion There you go, I'm glad you agree with me.

2) If you're going to claim that this is "influential", its installed base as a percentage of FS2000/FS2004 copies in circulation is completely the point. Once again no definition of influential has been given. Then why the claim it is?

3) Boy, as Wolgang Pauli once said, that's not right, that's not even wrong. What it is, is a bunch of tangential handwaving.

6) The word "objectively"? I do not believe it means what you think it means.

--Calton | Talk 08:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• I was using the wrong word...Thank you, you may want to delete your rebuttle with the word objectively...MachJok 08:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep

First, This is not a "ballot stuff" - I don't know who originally put up the TR-3 article but I am sure they never thought it would get contested. Really, deleting things from an encyclopedia? I am the designer of the aircraft in question so consider my bias. I use wikipedia religiously, and to see one of my own creations on this site was the realization of the sum of all our efforts (I didn't create this plane alone) and to the impressiveness of how the Wikipedia works. How do you define notable? I think the fact that the Federation of American Sceintists has their own page on the alleged aircraft TR-3 speaks volumes. A quick google search on the aircraft in question should yield plenty results. Or perhaps it's the fact that it is an aircraft for Flight Simulatorand you may be thinking the flightsim hobby itself is not of any notoriety. If you go to www.flightsim.com and do a file search for *.* all your doubts about the popularity of the flightsim hobby will swiftly be laid to rest. What is the problem with leaving the article? Logic suggests, that if it's not notable to you - don't read it. Leave it for those who enjoy such things and let it go. Alot of aircraft designers for FS make aircraft such as Boeings and Cessna's - this is the rule and not the exception. People get what they expect when they download common aircraft. But every once in a while an aircraft comes along that people download and they just have to ask the question "why not?" When people download an aircraft such as the TR-3 it makes them wonder and ask questions. It inspires creative and constructive thought - something all too rare nowdays. That is the driving force behind what I do and why I make "fake airplanes" So it's fictional - yes. So is Star Trek - it's still here. So it was created by a bunch of flightsimmers - yes. Pretentious? - Well it's not any more pretentious than people who feel they are obligated to correct and cleanup things, and leaving it here would do no more harm that useless pages such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Calton You see, in our hobby alot of people spend their hard time making things for free - Microsoft has known this for years and has always created their sims as an "open source" that anyone can edit and modify as they see fit (Hello Wikipedia...?) red_ace1 12:14, 31 March 2006 User's first edit, quelle surprise

• calton, I appreciate your personal message. I did not delete anything but that red box. Do no accuse me of deleting comments, those are people's personal ideas that I would never touch. So please once again: do not put words in my mouth and do no accuse me of actions that I did not commit. That red box does nothing but discouraged a vote.MachJok 06:36, 31 March 2006
  • I did not delete anything but that red box. You deleted that box -- period/full stop -- which the weasel-wording of "anything but" doesn't change -- and your claim also happens to be untrue: you changed "User's first edit": you DON'T do that. Capiche?
    • are you making a personal threat? If this is open source why can i not change anything that is directly related to ME and you made an INVALID comment about me deleting a comment. I deleted no comment. Ma tu pensi che puoi usare Italiano a un Italiano? Ma va.
      • Is reading comprehension a problem for you? Not to mention, YOU DID DELETE THE DAMNED BOX. My comment was not "invalid", but true. --Calton | Talk 08:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That red box does nothing but discouraged [sic] a vote. Read what's in that box, and the fundamental misunderstanding in your sentence will become clear. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • • • • I will be reporting your profanity in a public forum, That is unaccaptable.MachJok 08:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • <Rolls eyes>. You do that. Need any help in finding one, or as a user of many years can you find it on your own? --Calton | Talk 08:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I already have thank you for your help.MachJok 08:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

---

• Delete per nom. Fishhead64 06:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Fishhead, what is pernom and y do you want to delete the article? MachJok 06:59, 31 March 2006
    • It means "per nominator" -- something I would expect that someone who's used Wikipedia for years would recognize.--Calton | Talk 07:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

---

• KeepWhy get rid of it? I think it's a neat idea and it's also something that has a right to be on here. This is a stupid dispute to get rid of it CmpsdNoMore 01:12, 31 March 2006User's first edit, quelle surprise

---

• Merge all fictional aircraft into 1 article, leaving redirects as appropriate. The information remains, but it is clearly flagged as fictional. Non-notable craft can be elided as the transfer progresses, and someone knowledgeable can monitor subsequent additions. -- Simon Cursitor 07:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Thats the better idea in my opinion. --Mongo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.152.131.230 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 31 March 2006, and altered by User:Elgae Nacirema.

---

• Merge all I agree but those stipulations are still there and prevent people from making articles about not well known aircraft. Deleting this article does more harm than good. You are saying that you get to decide what people get to see, now for profanity and illicit articles yes i agree but not about an article that has none of thoseMachJok 08:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and improve Not an especially well-crafted article, but hardly a candidate for deletion. Simon Dodd 03:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• current vote as of 06:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC) is 6 - 4 infavor of keeping the article.

Calton - please stop putting silly remarks after our names because it is our first post, big deal - we havent had a need to post before today - accept it.

• Delete as non-notable fictional aircraft. Stifle 22:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; subject has very few google hits that aren't Wikipedia content. Vslashg (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia only goes that deep, esoteric knowledge like this needs to be branched off to some niche wiki -Obli (Talk)^? 23:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: as non-notable fictional aircraft. --Hetar 23:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems to be an important aircraft to the Flight-Sim community. YellowPigNowNow 00:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neither notable nor important. Eivind^t@c 00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. A pity though, I never heard about this in flight school ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, and noting what I perceive to be sarcasm, what does that have to do with the validity of this nomination? It has to do with flight-sim, not real life. YellowPigNowNow 00:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Stifle No Guru 00:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Stifle. bikeable (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Stifle. --Khoikhoi 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Montco 03:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While I'm not opposed to the notion of including fictional aircraft in Wikipedia, there's very little evidence that this particular model is significant. If there's any verification that it's notable to the flight simulator community, that information isn't presented in the article. --Alan Au 05:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable imaginary aircraft. 156.34.90.110 06:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Stifle. Sandstein 08:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

---

• • excuse me but would you mind EXPLAINING why you think this is non notable. and if you would like to seach the database of Flightsim.com and look at all of the conceptual aircraft 3000+ downloads is quite significant for the type of aircraft that it is. plus it fufills the articles of deletion. all aircraft could be argued not to have an impact of the flight simulator community, there are so many aircraft out. However, the fact that someone not affiliated with the company dedicated the time to create an article about this aircraft shows that it had an impact. And Obli most of the Fictional Aircraft have NOTHING to do with real life...unlike this aircraft which is rumored to actually exist. The purpose of Wikipedia was to create an online encyclopedia that people could access. If you want to split everything up into Fictional and Non-Fictional on 2 seporate Wiki's good luck handeling the overlap.....and Obli are you telling me that ALL the article contain only "deep, esoteric knowledge"??? AND WHY is every one counting google hits? the plane will be more widely sene on the download page for Flightsim.com not the company page...........you are making assumptions that have no credibility...google hits count for very little when the most widely seen page is the page on flightsim.com where it is downloaded. So far the main aircraft has been downloaded 3266(main aircraft) + 560(non company repaint) + 372 (non company repaint) = 4198 times....where as the most identifible airliner the 747-400 has been downloaded 9107 and both were put up within a month of each other, and for a concept aircraft that is really good. If you want proof look through all of the concept aircraft at flightsim.com MachJok 03:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. You may receive more favorable results from improving the article rather than arguing here. I would also point out that the 747-400 has notability outside the scope of a flight sim model, and is probably not a good example for comparative purposes. In other words, a dedicated article about a particular flight sim model representation of the 747-400 would probably be equally (in)appropriate for inclusion. --Alan Au 08:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

---

• Delete per Stifle. --Mmx1 03:58, 11 April 2006 (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.