Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeroplane-conveyor belt question

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 as recreation of previously deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A plane on a conveyor belt). —Doug Bell ^talk 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aeroplane-conveyor belt question

Aeroplane-conveyor belt question (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I am sure I have seen this posted before but I cannot find it. Someone please find the previous version and redirect this as a fork or mark it for the same deletion treatment. -- RHaworth 08:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - This topic is somewhat notable as quite a popular internet meme, covered by several well-known bloggers and other high-traffic websites (such as PhysOrg). Jayden54 10:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a resurrection of this, which was deleted. Delete per G4. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the reference. I would disagree with the deletion of the article under this clause as it states "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject." I believe this is to make sure it is only applied to deleted material simply being copied and pasted back into Wikipedia. I never saw the original article, nor was I aware that it had existed, so this would qualify as a new article on the same subject. I can't read the old article as it was deleted, so I can't comment on how similar the content is to this one. Looking at the discussion on the previous article, much of the trouble with the article was that it was considered to be badly written and referenced, and also there were people who wanted it deleted because they believe the plane wouldn't take off. For what it's worth I don't think it would take off either, but it's not a valid reason for asking for the article to be deleted.D-Angle 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete get this trash off Wikipedia. Planes fly because air flows over the wings. If its velocity was stationary because the conveyor belt prevents it's acceleration from achieving velocity compared to the air, it can't take off. Delete delete delete and fast. --MECU≈talk 16:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I am the original author so I declare my bias. But the fact that you do not believe the aircraft will take off is not a reason for deletion. The discussion about deleting the previous article seemed to degenerate into "vote delete of you don't think it will take off, and vote keep if you think it will take off." Also the previous article was named badly in my opinion.

The subject is notable and can cite sources to prove that - it is the widespread and viral nature of the debate that makes it relevant to Wikipedia, not the answer itself. Deleting the article on the basis that more people believe it will stay on the ground than believe if would take off, or vice versa, would not keep with Wikipedia's neutral point of view. -- D-Angle 18:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It is a notable question in popular physics. The Straight Dope column is carried in dozens of newspapers, and has covered it extensively. Numerous physics websites have covered it, and it has been a problem assignment in many college physics courses. There are lots of Google hits, but it is hard to sort out those for this problem versus general questions about aircraft and conveyor belts. The issue is not the sometimes defective sense of how things work on the part of editors here, but whether it has multiple independent sources talking about it, which requirement is most assuredly met. Edison 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE This article is nearly a photocopy of the article which was deleted by AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_plane_on_a_conveyor_belt, and I see nothing changing in the arguements.--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (sidenote: numerous videos have proven that the aircraft does not move by using model aircraft and werehouse conveyor belt.)

I assume you have a source of these video's correct? This would also create the notion of notability... if someone were to actually try it and record it? -SAO123 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.126.40.159 (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

• DELETE per nom. Dstanfor 21:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. There's no interesting physics here. If this topic is notable at all, it's only as an example of the tendency of people to express firm convictions about subjects that they don't understand. But I could point you to a dozen debates on Usenet just as long as this one, with just as little meaningful content; I don't see what's so special about this one (unless you count its being mentioned in The Straight Dope). I do think Wikipedia should have an article on this general phenomenon, of which the airplane debate would be a good example. (For some reason I want to call it "false expert syndrome", but that has no Wikipedia article and hardly any Web or Usenet hits, so I'm not sure where I got it from. Oh well, I'm no expert on this subject.) So why the keep? Well, Wikipedia has some surprisingly well-written and educational articles about other stupid debates, like 0.999..., and I can imagine this article becoming an equally good excuse to teach some interesting physics. It would have to be completely rewritten, of course. -- BenRG 21:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I stated my views on this in the previous AfD about a month ago, so I won't restate them - but I think we should delete.--TheOtherBob 22:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The sources given are insufficient to establish notability. Nick Graves 01:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While moderately interesting, this simply doesn't have enough notability to justify an article. All sorts of hypotheticals like this exist. --The Way 03:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, some people had some arguments, an answer was published a website. I'm really not sure what drives people to write articles here sometimes. Recury 20:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• keepenough of an intenet phenomena to record.DGG 01:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the question was today featured on Boingboing.net in reference to a NYT blog [1]. Both widely read sources. An encyclopedia should attempt provide reference for widely asked questions. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - I can't believe that such a simple question is being posed as a "conundrum" here on Wikipedia. Go back to school if you can't figure out this "question" in a few seconds. Get this nonsense off of Wikipedia. --Imroy 10:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I wrote the previous version of the article reference above by Baccyak4H. There were 10+ sources, including an airline pilot newsletter written by a nationally recognized airline industry columnist AVweb.com , Mentioned on a Neal Boortz Radio Show AM750 Atlanta on December 8, 2005 Source, Articles have been posted on Experts.about.com, MadSci.org, and ask a scientist. There was plenty of information to establish notability. I still suggest everyone claiming that this is not notable, should read the Wiki guide to notability. Wiki: On Notability The primary notability criterion The rationale that underpins the primary notability criterion is that the fact that something has been noted demonstrates that it is notable. Notability is something that is judged by the world at large, not by Wikipedia editors making personal judgements. If multiple people in the world at large that are independent of the subject have gone to the effort of creating and publishing non-trivial works of their own about the subject, then they clearly consider it to be notable. Wikipedia simply reflects this judgement. There are other portions of this argument to long to print here, but also read subsections Notability is not fame nor importance, Notability is not verifiability and Notability is not subjective for further relevent guidance. - SAO123 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.126.40.159 (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
• I think some of the comments on here are drifting into what I mentioned before, i.e. "I don't think the plane would take off, so delete delete delete." The article already says that the question polarises opinion, and at this rate we will be able to quote this page as a reference for that. The article isn't really about giving a definitive answer, but about the widespread debate over the question. If people want to give their reasons why the plane would take off or not there is a discussion page for the article. As for notability, a quick Google for "airplane conveyor belt" will show it is even more widespread than the references already quoted. If you don't think they are enough then add some more, there are plenty available. I appreciate where people are coming from, as a similar article has been deleted before, but I think differing opinons about the actual answer to the question colour the debate. Looking at the article again though, I think it could do with 2 sections for 'Arguments For' and 'Arguments Against.' There are several other articles on Internet memes on Wikipedia, and this one can cite its notability very well IMHO. D-Angle 10:58, 13 December 2006 (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.