Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ruptured Duck (B-25)

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. There seems to be consensus that what (relatively little) content there is specifically about this aircraft is better suited for inclusion in the parent article. Sandstein 09:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ruptured Duck (B-25)

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

Non-notable aircraft. one of sixteen in the Doolittle Raid, none of the others have an article. Most of the article makes very little mention of the actual aircraft and gives no indication of individual notability. Sections of the article repeat information from pilot's Ted W. Lawson article and the Doolittle Raid. Notability is not inherited from either the pilot or the raid. The Doolittle Raid article already says as much as needed on the Ruptured Duck. MilborneOne (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In what possible way is the encyclopedia improved by deleting articles like this?

A rationale of "Not notable, because other potentially related articles don't exist" is nonsense (and an experienced editor should know better).

As to basic notability, this is a 70 year old aircraft that's still recognisable by its name. Does the nominator really claim that it doesn't meet WP:GNG? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) I cant see any evidence that the actual aircraft is any more notable than the others in the raid that requires it to have a stand-alone article. If I felt it met the GNG I would not have raised the AfD! Nothing in this article that cant be (or already is) in the Doolittle or Lawson article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a vast number of articles that are "not required" - pretty much anything that's not on the "vital articles" list. However not having a requirement to do something is a long way from being compelled to, or it even being a good idea to, delete something that does now exist.

"Being required" is an irrelevance here. The only question is, "Is it permitted?" Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not sufficiently individually notable in terms of the GNG, any more than thousands of other named aircraft during the Second World War. Indicative of our overwhelming U.S. WP:Systemic Bias. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual aircraft have a very high notability threshold. This, one of sixteen in a raid, however notable that raid, doesn't meet it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while notability is not inherited, that does not mean that the "child" subject is automatically not notable. Yes, this is one of 16 aircraft involved in the Doolittle raid and the other 15 do not have articles; however, the other 15 didn't have a book written or multiple films made in which they were a central "character" (for lack of a better term). I think there is enough here to meet the individual aircraft notability threshold.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - google books does not throw up any independent reliable works of which the aircraft is the subject in the first 100 or so entries. Which suggests a failure to meet GNG. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the requirement for the aircraft to be the subject of a work for it to meet notability? The requirement per WP:N is 'significant coverage'. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I'm seeing is toy models and forum discussions. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The why did a reputable museum, in possession of a perfectly significant B-25 with its own history, chose instead to display the aircraft under a "false flag" (something that's hugely controversial in museum circles) as this particular aircraft? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the sources appears to provide in-depth coverage of this aircraft (I know for a fact that The Doolittle Raid 1942: America's First Strike Back at Japan doesn't). Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since I originated the article, I wish to provide some background. As it was derived from the host articles on Ted Lawson and the Doolittle Raid, the notability that was seen was that it was the aircraft that featured most closely to the account in Lawson's book, as well as the accompanying film, Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo. The recently opened Pacific Aviation Museum Pearl Harbor on Ford Island, Oahu, Hawaii also features a 1942 exhibit in which the centerpiece is a restored B-25 in the markings of "The Ruptured Duck", the most prominent aircraft used on the Doolittle Raid. The recent cursory google search of the aircraft, "The Ruptured Duck" identifies five separate reference sources that include an account of the aircraft, a link to the B-25 featured in the wartime film, nose artwork and models based on the aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment I know how much you love all things aviation-related, but none of these constitute anything remotely close to reliable sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BillZ, you made the statement "a restored B-25 in the markings of "The Ruptured Duck", the most prominent aircraft used on the Doolittle Raid." Is this actually something that the museum has stated? If so, and if it's been reported in a reliable source somewhere, then that would assert notability, and probably satisfy GNG. The article itself also makes a similar unattributed statment, which also needs to be supported. - BilCat (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to give an article/articles where this should be redirected, and a rationale as to why which gives releveant guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only thing I need to do is stay black and die. I'm not in the habit of playing connect the dots very often, especially when it's blatantly clear on the discussion about the airplane and the Doolittle raid. Currently the overall sentiment on the Doolittle raid and participants is redirect to that article, nothing about the airplane is all that notable, I realize you may in good faith trying to meet a end for the encyclopedia but if I wanted to be detailed I would have written more. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm going back to my coughin'. - BilCat (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being Lawson's aircraft that is prominently described in both his book and the film adaptation, the "The Ruptured Duck" was chosen to commemorate the Doolittle Raid at the Pacific Aviation Museum, and appears as the example for artwork, models (both in scale and in electronic versions). "The Ruptured Duck" also appears as the subject of a stamp issued to commemorate the Doolittle Raid. A macabre connection is that Doolittle Raider David Thatcher is one of the last survivors and in recounting his story aboard aircraft #7, "The Ruptured Duck", he essentially links the story of the aircraft and its role in the raid to his personal recollections. Finally, the choice of the "ruptured duck" symbol for the aircraft nose art was important as it represents a highly esteemed U.S. military award, officially the National Defense Lapel Button issued to personnel honorably discharged from service. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Delete - Per nom. No reliable sources cited to give indication of notability, merely primary sources, models and pins, which of themselves don't provide notabilty as required by WP:N. The article itself is more about the raid and the crew, which can be, and probably are,covered elsewhere. The article does claim notability for the subject, so if the citing issues are addressed on time, I would support it being kept. - BilCat (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting suggestion that the markings/scheme of The Ruptured Duck was specifically chosen at the Pacific Aviation Museum, led to a contact with the curator and staff at the museum. The curator indicated that the aircraft itself was to be a representative aircraft, essentially a display piece that would dramatize the Doolittle Raid. In choosing the colors and markings, the choice was to portray in his words, the most prominent or "best known" of the B-25s in the raid. When asking for a direct quote, the curator indicated that he would respond via email. The very colorful markings were recreated by an actual wartime illustrator who was brought into the museum; the nose art is now further recreated by other artists, again choosing this scheme over all others in the Doolittle Raid. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

That's original research, and we can't cite that in the article. However, if it were to be published in a reliable source such as a book or newspaper article from a reliable publisher, it would be usable then, Know any authors? ;) - BilCat (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The topic meets WP:GNG, but the article focuses on everything but The Ruptured Duck. For example, "Doolittle chose the relatively new B-25B." - that focuses on Doolittle. A sentence "The Ruptured Duck was chosen by Doolittle" focuses on the main topic, namely, The Ruptured Duck. The section on Preparations for the Doolittle Raid should only focus on how The Ruptured Duck was prepared for the Doolittle Raid. The Origins of the name section focuses too much on Lawson and not on the plane. The Doolittle Raid section should be limited to The Ruptured Duck's role in that raid. The Crew of The Ruptured Duck should focus on the plane as well. Instead of "Ted W. Lawson was the pilot.", it should be "The Ruptured Duck was piloted by Ted W. Lawson." Ted W. Lawson's birth date of 7 March 1917 listed in the article has no relevance to the plane. There appears to be no effort in the development of the article to focus on the plane. This has lead to using source material for its content on everything but The Ruptured Duck. I iVoted weak keep because the topic does meet WP:GNG but deleting the article and starting from scratch to focus on the plane is a viable option. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, article isn't about the aircraft. --Shorthate (talk) 21:46, 10 November 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.