Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre stick vs side-stick

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 delete. Violates WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. It may be theoretically possible to write a non OR/SYNTH article on this topic using entirely different sources, but that theory has not yet been tested. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centre stick vs side-stick

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

This article is a comparison between two aircraft control systems. The only refs cited or available do not compare the two control systems and thus the entire article violates WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. Discussion at WikiProject Aircraft reached a consensus to nominate for deletion as not encyclopedic. - Ahunt (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not encyclopedic in scope, and per the nom, synthetic in nature. Some of the referenced material might be salvageable for the joystick article, though. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- somewhat essayish, and inherently suffers from synthesis issus. Reyk _YO! 20:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems it should be broken up into two articles or renamed; the name is just silly. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, being discussed in detail in sources such as:

Richard Geiselhart; Paul Kemmerling; James E Cronburg; David E Thorburn (1970), A Comparison of Pilot Performance Using a Center Stick VS Sidearm Control Configuration
Reuven Gal; A. David Mangelsdorff (1991), Handbook of military psychology‎, p. 355
Richard W Shoenberger; Darrell L Wilburn (1973), Tracking Performance During Whole-Body Vibration with Side-Mounted and Center-Mounted Control Sticks

There's also some interesting studies of sidestick controllers as opposed to steering wheels in land vehicles such as S Birch (2000), Stick or Non-Stick so the topic might be expanded to cover vehicle controller ergonomics in general. Any deficiencies of the current draft are best addressed by further discussion and editing effort in accordance with our editing policy. There has been no significant discussion at the article's talk page and it appears that the editors above have not yet made a search for sources per our deletion policy and so deletion would be premature. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's useful and has sources (Idot (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Merge and ~~Delete~~ Redirect - Merge any useful content to existing Side-stick and Yoke (aircraft) articles and delete the comparison article for the reasons stated above. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MAD which explains why merge and delete is improper. What you're saying is that there is content worth retaining here. In this case, we keep the article per our editing policy. Any issues of titling and distribution may be addressed by ordinary editing and so deletion is not required. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Merge and redirect. Pick one of the two articles to redirect to then. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, though, Wikipedia:Merge and delete is not policy. It’s not even a guideline. — Satori Son 14:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - salvage what we can from the article and stick it on the other two, ax the page itself. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we do not delete material which is to be salvaged as the edit history should be maintained in accordance with our licence. The article may be merged, split and renamed without any need for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison articles are a no-no on wikipedia, but the references are diamonds in the rough. Salvage therefore in this case refers to anything cited to those reliable sources that can be shoved else where. I'm not saving this article, nor am I preserving its edit history; this is the same mentality I had here: the references are good, the article sucks. Salvage what we could (which we did) and delete the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy reason against comparisons which are fine if the comparisons are notable such as Comparison of web browsers. There are good policy reasons to forbid deletion of articles if their content has been plagarised or copied because this is contrary to the licence terms by which we reward and recognise our contributors. This topic is notable as the sources above testify. Your dislike of the topic is just a personal opinion and, unless you can produce a policy to substantiate it, that opinion is just WP:RUBBISH. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Rlandmann. Merge anything useful and reffed to a relevant page, and delete the rest. - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please see WP:MAD as explained above. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That essay doesn't apply to what I'm talking about. The "rest" will be deleted from the page, not the history. A hist-merge propably won't be needed. Please drop the pedantry, as most of us here are not newbies - we understand the fine points quite well. - BilCat (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some capacity per WP:PRESERVE. As the article does contain referenced information, I imagine we could probably at least make use of some of it in some airplane related article. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete comparisons such as this aren't encyclopedic Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:UNENCYC which explains that this is a circular argument. Do you have a rationale grounded in policy or is this just a matter of personal taste? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colonel Warden's book find. Comparison articles are fine if covered in notable books. That's why we have articles comparing ancient empires, and whatnot. Dream Focus
Delete per WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, and consensus reached WikiProject Aircraft. Appropriate material contained herein can be incorporated into other articles, obviously. — Satori Son 14:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unequivocal DELETE - per nom, nuff said~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 14:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Colonel Warden's references above. Hepcat65 (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is WP:OR/WP:SYNT. We do not WP:PRESERVE such articles. If comparisons indeed exist in references not used in this article, then someone can write a policy compliant article from scratch. Pcap ping 11:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DElete as article violates WP:OR and WP:SYNT. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:26, 3 March 2010 (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.