Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lockheed XF-104

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per WP:SNOW, though I'm assuming good faith on the nom's part. Non-admin closure. Snowman 22:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lockheed XF-104

AFD being withdrawn by nominator. It appears that the article has sufficient detail that there is some reason for keep. On the other hand, I haven't seen a clear policy reason yet to withdraw the AFD. Perhaps a solution might be to give the article a few months for it to develop. If it's a substantial article by then, the reasons for keep would be clear. Note that I don't intend to monitor the article and nominate for AFD at that time. Chergles 15:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Call for WP:SNOWBALL. FWIW Bzuk 02:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

Lockheed XF-104 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a prototype of the Lockheed F-104, not sufficiently different to get another article. Suggest merge and redirect (better) or merge and delete (not as good). Both planes have the same wing and height. No explanation to why they are totally different planes because they probably are not. Lockheed F-104 article is not too long so breaking it up into the XF-104 is not needed. Chergles 19:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - This page was created by a new user. He extensively researched his data, and spent some time putting it togetehr. From the beginning, I've expressed my concerns at WT:AIR about the necessity of a separate page for the XF-104, but agreed to give it some time to pan out, and then perhps consider a merger. Give the fact that you recommend merger, would not a merge proposal be the better and less drastic course? Also, AFDs are not intended to be a first resort, nor a means of initial discussion of an article. It is much more helpful to engage in discussion about your concerns than going directly to an AFD with no attempt at prior communication. I hope you would give serious consideration to withrawing the AFD, and perhaps proposing a merge directly instead. - BillCJ 19:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Would be a shame after I spent a lot of time on it. The F-104 page has editing problems already. There is a list of 'XF' fighters with their own articles, The XF-104 was missing. Will you tag F-104S, CF-104 and CL1200 for deletion also, you have to by the same thinking? I would be genuinely interested to hear what others think.Nimbus227 19:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak merge and redirect. Nimbus227 points out precedent in keeping, so good point, but I'm inclined to merge on the grounds that the protos, in my understanding, don't differ terribly much from the actual plane that comes out. Nimbus, as for the issue with the F-104 article having problems, remember, you can always fix them. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid to get involved in the current F-104 article although I would like to, it is mentioned in the WP Aviation project as a page needing attention. I am certain that any edits I made to it would be reverted whether they were factual and referenced or not. Other editors are struggling in there. Nimbus227 20:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • keep - Sufficient material to warrant it's own article, I would have thought. As mentioned above there is a prescedent for prototypes having their own articles. Artw 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Surely notable enough in its own right; helpful to users to have a separate article.--Bedivere 20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I think that article is barely a week old so it has hardly had a chance to mature. Dennis, I have been bold a couple of times and there were no reversions probably because I used known facts, thanks for the encouragement. It is probably easy in here to slash edit without explanation but I have always explained my edits, I believe in the idea of getting to the truth through consensus (hope I spelt that right). Is it a question of limited webspace or an individuals idea of tidiness? Nimbus227 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Although most "XF" articles are on prototypes that never went into production and so that comparison is false, articles on sub-types are plentiful, including several on sub-types of the F-104. I don't know why some people think that this one and the main F-104 article are short enough to be comfortably merged - I would hate to have to try. It is well researched, relevant, well written and long enough to stand on its own. I wish more articles were this in-depth and this polished. Well done. (BTW, "consensus" is correct, though "spelled" is what you did right with it). -- Steelpillow 21:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Spelt/Spelled is a US/UK spelling difference so either form is spelt (grin) correctly, although per WP:MOS when used in articles the variant that matches the rest of the article's usage should be selected, even if one is accustomed to the other variant in normal daily life (just as with center/centre, color/colour, and so forth) ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 14:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, my secondary school English teacher from many moons ago lives just over the road so I have to try my best with spelling and grammar or I will be in trouble! Nimbus227 21:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep and Strongly Oppose this move which was not discussed on the talk page even though the primary editor made a sincere effort to involve others in the creation of the article and it represents his first attempt at crafting a Wikipedia article. This flies in the face of "don't bite the newcomers." I question the use of an Afd when a merge tag was sufficient. What meagre evidence that was presented also does not coincide with what is now a well written and well researched article on a prototype aircraft that had been featured as a separate chapter in Steve Pace's book, "X-Fighters..." FWIW I am also calling for a Speedy conclusion under the WP:SNOWBALL clause. Bzuk 02:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Weak Keep: I was really for merging before. But the XF-104 is a good article and has testing info that would be lost on a merge. I do think it'd help a lot to copy any and all development and design info to the F-104 article. It has only a few paragraphs covering it's development history and nothing after it entered service (some is in variants and elsewhere I guess). -Fnlayson 22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's perfectly legitimate to have an article on a prototype and new users should be encouraged when they produce such good work. Deleting it because 'both aircraft have the same wing and height' is silly. Nick mallory 00:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Actually, the XF-104 is notable in its own right. It was built in part to test out Lockheed's novel and innovative trapezoidal wing on a supersonic aircraft – the first attempt ever on this design approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Askari Mark (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Article offers a rewarding amount of detail. I don't think it could be merged while retaining the current level of readability. Binksternet 02:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it all a bit strange really. By the proposers reason the F-104S (basically an F-104 with different avionics and missiles), the CF-104 (admittedly an F-104G for Canada) and the CL-1200 Lancer (F-104 with a high wing/low tail) should all also be tagged. Merging the XF-104 in to the main article would lose links to Tony LeVier etc, and make the article longer where it is already struggling. Several articles now link to the XF-104 where they did not before.

I notice the F-4 Phantom has its own page for variants and that is fairly cluttered.

Intrigued to see what happens but thanks to those who support the article remaining anyway.Nimbus227 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

::Strongly Oppose the merge and question the reasoning behind the merge/afd. The editor who proposed the merge is not a regular submitter and has recently emerged from an indefinite ban as a sockpuppet. FWIW Bzuk 04:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

--victor falk 04:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the nominator should just have proposed a merge, as others say AFD is a last resort and if a merge is desired, propose that. In this case though I don't even think a merge is necessarily warranted. On the other hand I also don't think a snowball is called for either, there is enough discussion here to merit letting the AfD run... (using Larbot for arcane IE related reasons) ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 14:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep article/ Oppose mergeLanceBarber 16:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the article is an extremely good start for a new editor, and a lot better than many I could mention. OK, so there is a certain amount of information carried over from the main F-104 article, but IMHO there is sufficient new and well researched material to let it stand on its own. I certainly don't think it deserves an AfD; and at the very worst it should have been recommended for a merge, which I also oppose. --Red Sunset 19:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep no reason for deletion, it might be merged, or not, but not deleted. The NF-104 deserves an article also. 132.205.99.122 20:26, 17 October 2007 (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.