Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft systems

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft systems

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There may be grounds for an article here, but I'm not sure this is it. An ambiguous premise, no sources. This would appear to be nothing more than a cursory and incomplete list of aircraft components (WP:SOAPBOX). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are no grounds for a nomination and I am sure that it is faulty. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST, a reasonably thorough search for sources is expected and it is apparent that this has not been done as a quick browse immediately finds entire books on the topic including Design and Development of Aircraft Systems, Stability and Control of Aircraft Systems and Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems. This appears to be nothing more than a cursory and incomplete drive by. See also WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it stands it makes very little sense to me (aircraft engineer/pilot). The title would be valid for an overview article using summary style format. What is missing is a parent category to round up all the aircraft system articles, I could create that and also work on the article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep. I have completely revised the text, there is now a citation in every section. I have added its parent navbox which should have been done years ago. There was also a Commons category with the same title (now linked) so it could be jazzed up with images in the future. I have also created a category (Category:Aircraft systems) which has this article as the eponymous page. There are some systems missing (weapons and emergency (ejection seats etc)) but they can be added. Hopefully that should be enough to close this nomination. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of the improvements done by Nimbus. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - excellent work by Nimbus in bringing this article up to code. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:34, 29 January 2021 (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.