Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planform

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 and redirect to Wing configuration. Sandstein 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planform[edit]

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

Reason The aeronautical aspect is the only current focus for this article, but the need for it does not stand up. At the general level we already have discussions of the overall wing configuration, supersonic aircraft, subsonic aircraft, lift (force) and so on, while at the detail level we have plenty of articles on things like aspect ratio (aeronautics), swept wing, delta wing, swing wing, tailless aircraft and so on. The exact planform of a design emerges as a complex compromise between many of these detailed technicalities and in the context of the general principles, it cannot sensibly be discussed in isolation. Wikipedia is NOTADICTIONARY and there is no value in having a separate article sandwiched in between the two general and detail levels of treatment we already have. This article should be deleted and re-purposed as a redirect to Multiview orthographic projection#Plan. There is no point in making it a standalone disambig page, as the proposed redirect destination needs to achieve that anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If falls afoul of WP:NOTADICTIONARY and also has no refs, so fails WP:GNG as well. - Ahunt (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are dozens of inlinks to Planform from aircraft articles. If the Planform article is deleted/repurposed then those links will need to be changed. DexDor^(talk) 18:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's one thing the Aviation WikiProject can take in our stride. :-)

Most will probably end up linking to Wing configuration#Wing planform. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a redirect at Planform (aircraft). DexDor^(talk) 20:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ahunt and no sources? - FOX 52 (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect...altho I'm not sure what to I really don't think this stands up as an article subject...I don't know if the word is used outside aviation, but really it's just jargon for 'what the thing looks like in plan view'TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Planform" is just a generic term for a shape seen in plan (i.e. from above) and is used in many other disciplines, for example the study of river meanders and hot gas convection patterns.[1][2] I suggested redirecting to Multiview orthographic projection#Plan in my original justification. I assumed the current page would be deleted first, but I don't know if that is necessarily so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. I checked a sample of the many links to this page. Most are gratuitously inserted where the term would not normally be invoked and the articles become clearer if the reference is deleted. Some appear to be ~~plain wrongly used~~ inappropriate to the current content, e.g. to describe the outline shape of a boat's sail or a surfboard's vertical fin. [apparently the marine usage is valid. 18:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)] It all looks very much like one over-enthusiastic but ill-informed editor's handiwork. The number of residual links that will need disambiguating is a lot smaller than appears at first sight, and the large number present at the moment should not be taken as an indicator of this article's significance. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have moved the new redirect to Planform (aeronautics) in line with current practice. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicates Wing configuration for no real reason, which is already much more complete and better referenced.NiD.29 03:19, 23 September 2015 (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.