Talk:Aerodyne Technologies

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aerodyne Technologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aerodyne.fr

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Don't merge. Trialpears (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

---

User:Ahunt one independent source falls way short of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I presume this is notable, but just needs WP:V. All the product articles should be merged into this if they fail WP:GNG / WP:NPRODUCT per policy / guideline. I'm sure you know this, we do have to maintain standards especially with companies and products. Widefox; talk 21:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I really wish you had brought this up in discussion first on the article talk pages, rather than go through a merger discussion. I am sure many of these articles can be expanded and that multiple third party refs are available and can easily be added. We are here to build an encyclopedia, after all. - Ahunt (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:NPRODUCT, "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right." The Aircraft wikiproject has long agreed that every aircraft type ever flown is notable. The only reason to merge would be if sufficient information on each type were unlikely ever to become available. That is not the case here. @Widefox: there is a templating system available to discuss multiple merges in a single thread. It would be helpful if you could use it next time you propose such a thing, thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 03:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Steelpillow - just add sources then. As long as it meets guideline there's no disagreement here. We all know no project get to override policy / guideline per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which I'm sure I don't have to quote, but considering the tone I will and then leave for you guys to edit with the knowledge that any other editor in future can challenge this exactly as I have, regards participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Widefox; talk 03:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the project did not flout any guidelines, it followed the one I quoted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record I have seen some quotes that the manufacturer and gliders were all profiled in paper industry publications (Parapente magazine) in the 2002-06 period. Just have to figure out which issues and where those can be located. - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Aerodyne Blaster

per talk - WP:N / WP:NPRODUCT per policy / guideline for non-notable Widefox; talk 21:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: The article already has one independent third party source. Each aircraft type has a scope for adding operational histories which would far exceed what could, or should, be covered in a manufacturer's article. We don't wind up articles like Cessna 172 and Cessna 150 into Cessna, as each type stands alone as a discrete subject. I have already started adding operational history to this article, detailing competition use as one example, just from easily-located on-line sources. More will be found in aviation press paper sources from this period. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per main Notability discussion. above. Short length or a current lack of citations are no reasons to merge notable topics. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Aerodyne Jumbe

per talk - WP:N / WP:NPRODUCT per policy / guideline for non-notable Widefox; talk 21:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: The article already has one independent third party source. Each aircraft type has a scope for adding operational histories which would far exceed what could, or should, be covered in a manufacturer's article as detailed above. Articles being incomplete is no reason to merge them. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Note this article has now been updated to include a second independent ref, plus a second party review (was actually third party at the time of writing) and so meets WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per main Notability discussion. above. Short length or a current lack of citations are no reasons to merge notable topics. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Aerodyne Shaman

per talk - WP:N / WP:NPRODUCT per policy / guideline for non-notable Widefox; talk 21:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: The article already has one independent third party source. Each aircraft type has a scope for adding operational histories which would far exceed what could, or should, be covered in a manufacturer's article as detailed above. Articles being incomplete is no reason to merge them. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Note this article has now been updated to include a second independent ref and so meets WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per main Notability discussion. above. Short length or a current lack of citations are no reasons to merge notable topics. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Aerodyne Totem Bi

per talk - WP:N / WP:NPRODUCT per policy / guideline for non-notable Widefox; talk 21:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: The article already has one independent third party source. Each aircraft type has a scope for adding operational histories which would far exceed what could, or should, be covered in a manufacturer's article as detailed above. Articles being incomplete is no reason to merge them. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per main Notability discussion. above. Short length or a current lack of citations are no reasons to merge notable topics. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Aerodyne Yogi

per talk - WP:N / WP:NPRODUCT per policy / guideline for non-notable Widefox; talk 21:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: The article already has one independent third party source. Each aircraft type has a scope for adding operational histories which would far exceed what could, or should, be covered in a manufacturer's article as detailed above. Articles being incomplete is no reason to merge them. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Note this article has now been updated to include a second independent ref and so meets WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per main Notability discussion. above. Short length or a current lack of citations are no reasons to merge notable topics. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: Notification of the existence of this discussion has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tagging

This article has been tagged as "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral." The text is mainly sourced to Bertrand, Noel; Rene Coulon; et al: World Directory of Leisure Aviation 2003-04, page 10. Pagefast Ltd, Lancaster UK, 2003. ISSN 1368-485X which is an independent third party reference with independent editorial oversight that is published in several languages around the world. This is a high quality reference written and published by a team of experts. The use of this ref has been discussed in the past on WP:AIR and the consensus was that it is a reliable source. - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Being as nobody is challenging that source, that's a straw man and does not address the issues that are being challenged and detailed above. In reply to all the oppose !votes above, I'm failing to see how by stating they all have one source (and therefore automatically fail GNG let alone NPRODUCT) an oppose is in line with guideline at NPRODUCT Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product...If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge it into an article with a broader scope (for example, an article about the type of product) or follow one of the deletion processes. . Widefox; talk 00:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hardly a straw man argument. You tagged the article as lacking independent third party sources. All I was doing was pointing out that it was primarily based on an independent third party profile of the company. Can it use more sources? Sure, but the tag was inaccurate, as it was did not "rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject". You can note most of the aircraft type articles now have "multiple third party independent sources" and are therefore notable. None of them were "stubs" to start with. - Ahunt (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Bottom line - WP:NCORP is fairly strict nowadays for obvious reasons, so merging all these products in here is one way to save the content if more sources don't exist. :) Widefox; talk 03:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

More tagging

This article has been tagged as "This article may have too many links to other articles...." I have re-read it and I can't identify any links that could be removed. Perhaps you could indicate which ones are surplus and therefore could be removed, to address this open tag? - Ahunt (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The majority of the blues are currently sub GNG, and so presumably the reds are similar. (see above how project level agreements do not override site wide, and it literally doesn't matter how many limited consensus voices there are.) Widefox; talk 03:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The tag indicates that they are "too many links to other articles", so I am presuming the issue is with blue links and not links to non-articles (red links). We don't normally cut red links, as per WP:REDLINK Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject. It is possible that Aerodyne International Group, being what seems to be a holding company, would be an unlikely future article and could be delinked. Not sure why you would say the blue links don't meet GNG. Currently all but one of the aircraft type blue links have at least two independent third party refs and the rest are to place articles such as Étrembières and Mauritius, or to well sourced general subjects such as flight training and paraglider. - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)