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. Subsequent discussion seems to have polarized opinion about the reliability of the added sources, and the polarization is clearly negative. causa sui (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobson Flare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 27. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as before, more an attempt to propagate and promote than report. Worthless not notable trivia the sort the en wiki is bloated and demeaned by. Off2riorob (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't here to impress elitist. Dream Focus 10:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For reasons already mentioned in the deletion review. Can we just reopen the old AFD, and copy over what everyone said from the deletion review to avoid having everyone have to repeat themselves? The sources found clearly establish its notability. Dream Focus 10:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Landing: The much touted ref that shows notability is back on the internet, after being unavailable for a while. As I said in the last AfD, this ref itself says Jacobson "stresses that he is not promoting any radical departure from current practice" and "Users affirm that it is in no way a radical departure from current practice - it defines what they are already doing, making it more precise." The Flight International article provides enough detail to clearly state that the "Jacobson Flare" is just a refinement of normal airplane landing techniques and this confirms that it should not have its own article, as, with the how to text excluded, would only be a sentence or two, would be insufficient for a stand-alone article and thus should be merged into the Landing article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, within the scope of which this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' still not really notable for a stand-alone article but could be mentioned as a one liner in Landing. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as independent article (retain content within "landing" or similar). Articles need to meet GNG which requires significant coverage, so far it is an article in Flight International and a mention in an abstract (which by definition is brief). What is described is a method a calculating the flare point (as opposed to pilot instinct earned through practice) and as such it belongs with landing rather than as a subarticle of landing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I agree with Ahunt and GraemeLeggett. This article has whiff of promotion about it, says nothing useful that isn't already in Landing, and says it badly. Surplus to requirements. Reyk _YO! 02:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Still unreferenced (no inline citations), non-notable, deserves only a passing mention in the landing article and it would have to be cited if it was added there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain, but here's my take on it anyway. Currently we have one reliable source: the article in Flight International. Other sources have been discussed but have eventually been dismissed. In the last AfD and the subsequent overturn discussion, the abstract on ARIC was dismissed as it was never actually published, and the article in Flight Safetywas found to be a passing mention only. There appear to be no other independent sources (and god only knows I've looked!). Although Ahunt points out that the Flight International article appears to describe Jacobson Flare as a refinement of current technique only, it was still significant enough for them to devote an entire article to its intricacies. This debate comes down to one issue, really: is a single reliable source providing significant coverage sufficient to warrant keeping the article? Yunshui (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources that cover this sort of thing are available for easy online searching? Do you sincerely doubt that it is covered elsewhere as well? PLEASE read the Wikipedia Policy at WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Dream Focus 15:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter to us if the sourcing is online or the written page. I suspect we would be having a similar discussion if the only source quoted for the article was the Heavy aircraft pilot's guide to flying: Volume 2. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  The talk page was deleted on May 29, but the prod was not removed until September, or so it would appear.  Is there some reason we can't view the Discussion page and its history?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD was actually successful; the article was undeleted in September. The deleted talk page edits pre-PROD basically are "delete this piece of FOD" and "Yup, PRODded". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge  There is nothing objectionable with this material, except that it would be helpful if it were in the a context that explains "flare".  Since there is no apparent need for a stand-alone article, it is not even necessary to consider the notability of this topic, which seems to have been too much the topic of this discussion.  The vast majority of !votes approve of having at least some of the material appear in another article.  The lone delete !vote that does not so approve asserts that the material is "worthless", but there is evidence of at least one strong reliable independent source, and the existence of non-independent reliable sourcing is implied.  There is also reason to believe that this process is being used by the pilots of passenger airplanes, which means a lot of governmental regulators, and politicians that fly on airplanes, are potentially involved.  So the idea that all of this material is "worthless" should stand refuted.  WP:ATD policy considerations call for a consideration of merge before considering the deletion of material.  That leaves only one keep !vote and one refuted delete !vote opposed to merge.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Redirect to Landing flare with merger as an exercise for the reader.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said at the DRV, the correct outcome is for us to create an article called landing flare and redirect this title there. No objection to a redirect to landing in the meantime.—S Marshall T/C 13:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is no longer a red link, and I have changed my !vote above to be "Redirect to Landing flare.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I've been flying for 20 years and I've never even heard of this. More than an hour of reading through reputable documentation hasn't given me a single mention of it anywhere. This deserves a mention in landing... maybe, but definitely not it's own article. Trusilver 16:19, 9 October 2011 (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.