Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pull up (aircraft)

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 Speedy Delete (G7) - non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pull up (aircraft)[edit]

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

Redundant, describes go-around with a fair bit of OR to go with it. Lfdder (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Largely fanciful and mostly unsourced original research and duplication of go-around. - Ahunt (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (orate) @ 11:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - confuses the everyday language "pull up" with the specific "pull up procedure" used in some circumstances. It might have been worth moving to Pull up procedure (aeronautics) or similar, except there is not enough significant material available to warrant an encyclopedic entry. I can't even think of a sensible redirect. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:15, 1 June 2013 (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) 16:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete procedural descriptions are not included in wikipedia under the "Not A How To" policy. Badly named too - implies an aircraft type called a "pull up".GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated above, this duplicates go-around, appears to consist largely of original research, and seems to confuse a an everyday term with a specific procedure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete. The sources I've provided all talks about "pull up" (or "pull-up") as a procedure. It's no copy of "go aroud" I even thought that term was "turn around" (gotten from the TV-series "The worlds most dangerous airports". Nuumber one at that list was concidered as Lakla in Himalaya. In that program a pilot said "a turn around is not possible here") I have just accepted that "go around" is the proper (general) term. But as I do state "pull up" is a procedure that must not be confused with aureal warnings, not even "pull up" warning. The "pull up" procedure is not needed for smaller airplanes. I think some pilots of such has taken offence. I'm sorry for that. Bull the "pull up" procedure is practiced at all PFC's (test for airliner pilots, atleast twice a year). I'm asking for some more time, to references the original reseach parts. I can agree with a better name would be "pull up procedure (aviation)" Boeing720 (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Pull up" is a procedure as much a procedure pulling up is. You need to read your own sources. One is about going around, the other 3 are about pulling up when the GPWS sounds, i.e. when you're about to crash into the ground. — Lfdder (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom and Ahunt. Someone says "pull up", someone hauls the controls towards his or her stomach and pushes the throttle/s into the panel; the end. Is that a procedure - there are procedures for everything in aviation. Someone says "positive rate", someone says "gear up", someone selects the landing gear up. Someone says "flaps 10", someone moves the flaps selector to the ten-degree setting. Someone says "takeoff power", someone moves the power levers to the appropriate position; and so on.... YSSYguy (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My copy of Jane's Aerospace Dictionary has 15,000+ entries of aviation terminology. There are two entries with the word 'pull up'. The first is 'pull up' the whole definition (which I believe I can copy here as we are not in article space) is Short sudden climb from level flight, normally trading speed for height (usually general aviation or tactical attack). The second instance is 'pull-up point', Geographical point at which aircraft must pull up from lo approach to gain sufficient height to make attack or execute retirement. The first definition could be covered by the Zoom climb article and the second is described at Toss bombing where it is described as the 'Pop-up point' which is a term that I'm more familiar with.

What I am reading in this article is a strange interpretation of the go-around procedure where the pull up part (using text from that article) is ...adopts an appropriate climb attitude and airspeed, simple aircraft handling with no need for a page of description. Referencing sentences from sources that have the words 'pull up' in them doesn't work unfortunately. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I take the OR criticism to me (and learn from it - however there are lots of far more unsafe articles in Wikipedia). I also admit to have written the article too hasty. And the name of the article was indeed an error. However I strongly object to the accusations of "copying the go-around article". It's like some people just will not understand that the (eledged) "pull up procedure" is a part of certain go arounds, and only applies to large aircraft with two pilots, and at very low radio altitude, runway close. I had never had a look at the "go around" article. I belived that the common term for all aborted approaches was Turn around (This phrase was used by a pilot in the TV-seies "The world's most dangerous airports" ). If you look in the history file, the first version did not contain the phrase "go around" but "turn around". (Change into "go around" was made due to inflict of an other user). I may very well return with a proper sourced "Pull up procedure (aviaiton)" article. Would a flight training guide for any large aircraft be a sufficient source ? Including a chapter of "Pull ups" that do not apply to any warning sound !? Boeing720 (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been made clear, there is no such thing as a specific 'pull up procedure' in aviation. Pulling back on the controls in order to level out or climb is simply something on does in an aircraft in appropriate circumstances. It certainly does not only apply to 'large aircraft with two pilots'. Please do not waste peoples time recreating articles based on your misunderstanding of subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In aviation "turn around" refers to servicing an aircraft with fuel, oil, inspecting it pre-flight, etc after its arrival, in preparation for a departure. When a pilot requests a "quick turn around" from servicing, he is asking for a hasty refuelling, etc, so he can get back in the air quickly. I think you are confusing a bunch of different stuff you saw on TV, none of which was accurate. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Author blanked the article. Can we have this deleted now or do we have to wait the full seven days? — Lfdder (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Lfdder. To show that I've actually have taken the OR, and name criticism to heart, I did delete the text of the article myself. (And got an automatic warning for doing so...) However I did never use any material from the "go around" article. And by study the history file, which I didn't delete, (and don't know how to) I used the phrase "turn around" - not "go around" when I first created the article. This was later changed only due to the first criticism at the article's talk page. And I do not "here and now" state that "turn around" was correct. Please try to understand that the mention of "turn around" at this page "here and now" only was an attempt to disprove the wrongfully accusation of that I had copied any text from the "go around" page. I.o.w. - again - I have taken all criticism (except "the copy accusement") to heart, and will learn from it. (The fact that sources of "pull ups" within aviation is difficult to find at internet, does not exclude that I some other time will find good sources of "pull up procedure" elsewhere though. If that will be the case, time will tell. Otherwise I will not return with an improved article. I do also accept that some people don't belive that that the "pull up procedure" exist (or has existed). Fair enough ? Boeing720 (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see where you were accused of copying the go-around article. The editors stated that this article duplicates it, meaning it is redundant to that article, not that it was an exact copy of it, or sections of it. In the future, you should probably seek advice of the editors at WT:AIR before attempting to re-create this article, as the clear consensus here was going to be a delete anyway. - BilCat (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This debate all looks to be a moot point as the article was CSDed while we we here debating the AFD. I think someone can go ahead and close this AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2013 (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.