Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avro Vulcan XM655

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 no consensus. About whether to merge or keep. This discussion can continue via merger discussions on the article talk pages. Sandstein 19:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avro Vulcan XM655[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, XM655 is only noteworthy as one of the three remaining taxi-able Vulcans, the other two being XH558, which is notable for having been flying displays until this year, and XL426, which doesn't have its own article. The history of this aircraft doesn't appear to be much different to that of XL426 (sold for a planned restoration and return to flight, but since projected costs were too high, kept as a taxiable exhibit), and the article certainly doesn't say what else it is about it that would justify its own article while that one doesn't. I don't know, but I suspect that this is the case for most of the surviving aircraft, and so this might be better presented in a list of survivors type article. But I'm simply not seeing any compelling evidence in sources that suggests it is independently noteworthy for any other reason (all results seem to be merely passing mentions in pieces that are about XH558 or about Vulcans in general. Natural Ratio (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep FFS! What are you doing here other than posting a series of Vulcan AfDs - List of Avro Vulcan XH558 post-restoration public appearances - with fatuous rationales? Are you going to go after the rest of the Vulcan articles next?

This is a significant class of aircraft with few survivors, and only a very few still in this taxiable condition. Like other major museum exhibits, we consider them to be reasonable subjects for an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. First, please note that I am the only person to have significantly added any material to the XH558 article in a very long time, so any suggestions I am on some kind of anti-Vulcan crusade is nonsense. Second, please note that as I had already said, there are three taxiable Vulcans, only two of which have articles, so already your claim that being taxiable makes them notable isn't all that convincing. It falls down completely when you factor in the fact that XH558 is obviously notable for reasons other than (now) being taxiable, and this article had zero secondary sources. Thirdly, I have just created List of surviving Avro Vulcans in advance of the (imho) likely deletion of this article for being non-notable, so by my count, I am neither a net creator or destroyer of Vulcan articles at this point. If you're arguing that major museum exhibits all deserve articles, then by my count, there should be a hell of a lot more articles on individual Vulcans than the present two, since I'd say in at least half those cases on that list, the Vulcan is going to be the main exhibit. And I plan to create at least one more article, Vulcan Display Flight, and then hopefully, once that museum list is fleshed out, Wikipedia's coverage of what Vulcan's did after withdrawal by the RAF might not be so crap after all. But hey, thanks for confirming my belief that contributing to Wikipedia is a soul-crushing experience, where effort to improve articles is basically ignored, and the only time someone even acknowledges your existence is to give you grief. Natural Ratio (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the sum of your rationale? That because XL426 doesn't have an article, XM655 shouldn't have one either? Why is XH558 notable? Because it's recently had a history of display appearances? You're trying to delete that article too! An article that you created by copying the content, uncredited, from the original article, removed from the source article and now you're trying to delete the split article. How is this not trying to remove the Vulcan articles? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really haven't a clue what you're raving about. You lost me at the fourth question mark, after which I have no clue which specific article/s each mention of "article" is meant to refer to. But even up to then it was pretty obvious you were working from your own script, where I am apparently Dr Evil, rather than replying to anything I've actually said or done. If you don't drop the attitude and start showing me some basic respect, I'm simply not going to even reply any more. It's not like I'm getting paid to eat this kind of shit. Natural Ratio (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see now from your attribution notices what some of the second part refers to. You think that because I started the appearance list article by first copying content over from the XH558 article, and have now put the list up for deletion, that when combined with this deletion, this is all evidence of some devious plot of mine to destroy all the Vulcan articles. Well, all I can say is, you need to seriously consider if you've got even the right stick, let alone the right end of it. A careful examination of what I actually did to that information after splitting would show that deleting it was not my ultimate goal, I actually improved it, albeit not nearly enough to make it any less shit, and that is why I told you in that Afd today that deleting it is not the goal, affirming positively that it should exist is, but for reasons best known to yourself (furthering this Dr Evil paranoia I'm guessing), you've chosen to ignore that in favour of this nonsense, where somehow I'm supposedly targetting the XH558 appearance list and XM655 article for extermination first, and then I'm going to presumably move on to trying to delete the other two Vulcan articles I just created today, before then trying to delete XH558 itself, even though I wrote a huge chunk of it myself a while ago. Either you think I'm mad and just really really like wasting my own time, or you have simply not paid close enough attention to what I've said or done and are operating on a knee-jerk basis to the word 'deletion'. Natural Ratio (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what your game is here. You have sent this article to AfD, without the common decency to notify the creator of the article. You are behaving WP:DISRUPTivly in your other AfD, nominating your own split article, then voting to keep, and commenting against every keep and delete !vote, clearly just wasting the time of other editors. Now here you have launched a personal attack against Andy whilst at the same time demanding respect. You are then talking about having you time wasted whilst behaving like this. This is not the way to behave. Martin451 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only attacks here are coming from you two - I'm not up to any "game" here, nor am I on any kind of crusade to delete Vulcan content. Anyone who took even half a second to examine my edits would know that. You can lecture me on how to behave when you start behaving yourself. I wasn't aware it was considered a common courtesy to inform the creator of a deletion, but now you have told me - hey, Martin, the article you created is up for deletion. Was there some reason you didn't explicitly say in the above that you were referring to yourself? Natural Ratio (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy raving on? Claiming Andy is paranoid, and labelling you as Dr Evil. Then demanding that Andy drops the attitude and pays you respect. That is a WP:PERSONAL attack. Martin451 21:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable museum exhibit. WP:OSE the fact that there are not articles about other Vulcans is no a valid reason to delete this. There was an article about the Vulcan Restoration Trust, operators of XL426, and hence also about XL426, but this was deleted last year due to a copyright infringement, not because of a lack of notability. Martin451 00:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there are enough reliable independent sources out there to demonstrate that both this Vulcan and XL426 are notable, and indeed all others in museums if that's what you're arguing here, then by all means present them here so it can be judged. All you seem to be doing is simply asserting it's notable, without proving it. And since you were the person who created the article in the first place, that doesn't seem very compelling to me. Natural Ratio (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming my arguments are meritless because I created the article? I would point out that whether or not they are compelling to you is immaterial, it is up to the closer of this AfD, who has to be an uninvolved admin for the article to be deleted, or an uninvolved editor if there is a clear consensus to keep. At the moment there is no clear rational under wikipedia policy to have this article deleted. You claim to have created a new article, which is really copying content from other articles to create a WP:Content fork, for a list of surviving Vulcans. If none, or just one of those Vulcans are notable, then there is not enough WP:NOTABILTY for that list to be on wikipedia, and it should also be deleted. Like the list of displays of XH558, this material will be deleted from wikipedia, Andy was correct in his opinion of what you are doing, even if it is unintended and you don't realise it. Martin451 21:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I've had enough of this. If you think you and Andy have a case about my supposed disruption, you can argue it at the Administrator's Noticeboard. Natural Ratio (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the behaviour of the nominator and myself are now being discussed at WP:ANI wrt this and one other AfD. Martin451 01:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of surviving Avro Vulcans. A separate article isn't warranted. There just doesn't seem to be much media notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge. to an article about the three surviving planes. It seems pretty obvious. Anyone looking for it who is not a specialist is going to want to find the 3 discussed together. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to List of surviving Avro Vulcans per Clarityfiend. Anotherclown (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick search of the Internet shows a lot of interest in this aircraft. Reliable sources demonstrating its notability are there to be found. It has its own Maintenance and Preservation Society for a start. All this article needs is a citation banner and some TLC. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact XL426 doesn't have its own article is not important. What is important is whether XM655 is notable enough for its own article - and it appears to me that it does manage to pass the GNG as a rare surviving example of a large, distinctive aircraft. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the bushranger _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and re-direct to the List. If real notability is discovered an article can be written, or even this one resurrected with the necessary material added. No great shakes, not anti-Vulcan, just the article, as presently written, does not demonstrate notability: e.g. Did it carry out any Black Buck raids? Was it flown by royalty? etc. etc.. So far the answers are resounding nos.--Petebutt (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does indeed need referencing and improvement, but AfD is not for cleanup A quick check of gNews - just recent stuff - shows several articles mentioning it even now, and there are also gBooks and (reliable) "regular" hits. Whether the references are in the article is not relevant to whether or not it should be kept - this is not a BLP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of surviving Avro Vulcans per clarityfiend. Found sufficient good sources on the first superficial google search. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.