Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Coden

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. Killiondude (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Coden[edit]

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

Vehicle prototype with no media coverage. How does it pass WP:GNG? Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is WP:CONSENSUS that any manned aircraft that has flown is notable. The question here is, did the Coden actually fly? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the aircraft design has received coverage in independent third party sources, as cited, so it meets WP:GNG. These sorts of development projects are often kept under wraps until production is commenced and so it can be hard to confirm if it has flown yet or not. I will see what can be done to expand the article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find no evidence that this design has flown yet or that the project itself is notable. Yes there are third-party references, but only a few and they are all to the project not to any actual aircraft. That is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG, this is at best an example of WP:TOOSOON. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly any aircraft that flew is notable but the converse is not true as we include many aircraft that never did and never will, eg (at random) the Arado E.381. I'd keep an eye on Jane's for updates, but UK austerity means that my library has ended it annual purchase.TSRL (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We only include a non-flying project where other aspects of the project make it notable. For example all the projects of all the major aircraft manufacturers were part of the overall sweep of aviation history and many independently-written books and journal articles attest to their notability. But just because I tout some kitchen-table daydream to a few trade shows and put up a web site, will not make it notable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to be fair this is more than a "kitchen-table daydream". We do know for sure that a prototype was constructed and exhibited at AERO 2015 and did attract aviation media attention. It just isn't clear if it has flown or certification started yet, but it isn't purely vapourware. - Ahunt (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kitchen table, kitchen schmable. That is not being fair, it is picking nits in my wording. We don't include every half-baked carcass that never made it into the sky. There is not enough coverage of the AERO show to pass GNG. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary to date So far we have two delete votes and two keep votes. Guidelines say that the quality of argument on either side is more important than the headcount. To summarise that: we have a design which has never flown and has not been shown to be notable in any other way. Beyond a couple of passing mentions in trade rags, absolutely no evidence has been brought that this topic passes GNG. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Steelpillow, the closing admin can judge that for themselves; you don't need to get out the WP:BLUDGEON. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies if you feel bludgeoned. But we have had two extensions of time, I felt that things needed a bit of a prod. I am not interested in winning or losing but in establishing whether there is any evidence base for notability. By challenging supporters of the article up front, this may encourage them to bring any they know of to the table. I was speaking to them rather than to the closing admin. Feel free to continue this line of discussion on my own talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON, Ahunt, you state above "the aircraft design has received coverage in independent third party sources, as cited, so it meets WP:GNG.", happy with World Directory of Light Aviation but the other is from Coden Gyro, the company that appears to be developing the aircraft so not useable for notability, do you have any others (i was unable to find any with a quick gsearch ..... damn that goog:))? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The WDLA is the sole independent third party ref I have for the aircraft, although there are resume sources from one of the designers available. There are also more first party refs, like the manufactuirer's Facebook page, although it has not been recently updated. - Ahunt (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It won't help with more independent refs, but I have taken the step of writing to the company to inquire about the status of the aircraft, including asking whether it has flown or not. I realize that won't be "citable", but would make this discussion a bit more conclusive. I'll report back here if I hear anything from them. - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2017 (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.