Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight International

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Publication appears to have significant history and frequent citations in other reliable sources, therefore meets basic criteria for newspapers/magazines according to Wikipedia:Notability (media). The latter is not a notability guideline, nevertheless current consensus appears to be that this is an important topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flight International

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

Topic appears to be non-notable based on the General notability guideline – I find little to no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Google books results appear to be either passing mentions or just citations. The sources currently used in the article are either copies of the magazine itself or press releases circulated by PR Newswire and Business Wire. Such paid promotion is not a valid route to an encyclopedia article, nor do such routine news reports constitute significant coverage according to Wikipedia:Notability. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC) (Update: press release sources have been removed with the addition of one citation to a brief mention on an independent publication. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited an independent reliable source confirming that this is the world's oldest continuously published aviation magazine, and note that the "books" and "scholar" searches linked above show that this publication is very highly cited in academic works. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding that source. Since the topic occupies less than a single paragraph in the book, I'm not sure it's notable enough for a standalone article, though it could be worked into a different article. As for the magazine being "very highly cited", that's beside the point. Notability requires significant coverage in independent sources. According to WP:GNG, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content", and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a long-standing, well-regarded and still widely available magazine. As the IP editor notes above, the results of the links demonstrates that this is a widely cited work. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request snow close for keep This AfD better be a joke right? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A clearly notable aviation magazine. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
snow - close and speedy keep. Reporting the OP for WP:DISRUPTION might also be considered - either that or their failure to identify RS is a blatant lack of WP:COMPETENCE. Just for starters:
1. R. Dallas Brett's entire two-volume content of History of British Aviation 1908-1914, 1933 (My copy is a 1988 reprint) was culled from the pages of Flight.
2. Wikipedia's aviation articles make extensive reference to it, see for example John William Dunne, Lee-Richards annular monoplane, Flying wing etc. etc,
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, here are the notability guidelines at WP:NMEDIA and also reproduced at WP:MAGAZINE:
Notability is presumed for newspapers, magazines and journals that verifiably meet through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
have produced award winning work

have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history

are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area

are frequently cited by other reliable sources

are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets
Note that Flight only needs to pass one of these. There is no question that it passes several of them. The claims made by the OP are transparently false. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for good measure, here are some RS that index their citations/mentions of Flight: Walker, Early Aviation at Farnborough (both volumes), Gollin, No Longer an Island, Hallion, Taking Flight, Babington Smith, Testing Time. Is that enough to pass 4. yet? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Frivolous AfD nomination of the most notable periodical in the field of aviation for over 100 years. - Ahunt (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2016 (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.