Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NACA Report No. 761

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. The keep !voters do not address why this report is notable or why an article about it belongs here. If someone would like me to userfy to aid a transwiki to Wikisource I would be happy to oblige. Rlendog (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NACA Report No. 761

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

Contested PROD. No assertion that this report was notable. This article contains extensive word-for-word plagiarism of source text with no credit. Even if this is not technically a copyright violation due to its US Government source, this is still poor scholarship. This is a very detailed technical report with no overview or context for its significance suitable for an article. Essay-like tone, not encyclopedia tone. There is no need to preserve it on Wikipedia as the owner of the document is already doing that. Similar deletion discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NACA Report No. 133, prods for reports No. 134, 102,104. Entire category of these reports (collectivity, not Wikipedia category) nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_2#Category:National_Advisory_Committee_for_Aeronautics. Contributor was notified of the problematic nature of these excerpts during the deletion discussion for No. 133. A discussion of NACA's research and reports resulting from it would be an encyclopedia article, but cut'n'paste of the report texts themselves is not. Wtshymanski (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it says at [[1]], "This category contains 50+ articles based on NACA technical reports, e.g. NACA Report No. 132 These are now being proded individually (e.g. 99, 102, 104), for a variety of reasons. A centralised discussion is more appropriate" --Guy Macon (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if a summary of this is considered acceptable, then rewrite this as a summary (or, more even excerpt it, since it's PD_US) DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain why you want it kept? --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also think that article is valid. I do completely agree that it is poorly written and needs to be cleaned up. Kumioko (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would change my vote on this and any other NACA Report pages that don't add to what is in the report if they were all put on Wikisources. I do think that is a better place, but having them here is better than having them nowhere or having them on an apt-to-change government site that Wikipedia cannot control. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NACA Report No. 133 resulted in consensus that while suitable for wikisource it was not for wikipedia, and the article was deleted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no establishment of notability per the General Notability Guideline, there is no indication within the article of its influence, or lack of, on aviation. Article is orphaned and I doubt whether many incoming links are likely. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per GraemeLeggett and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NACA Report No. 133. --Kvng (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article asserts notability. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero notability. Whatever information worth having is better put on relevant articles, such as in engine knocking, etc. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator It's probably too late to bundle the remaining 40+ items into this discussion but if this one goes to deletion, the others should be considered for similar treatment. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2012 (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.