Talk:Harbin Flight Academy
 | This page was proposed for deletion by JML1148 (talk · contribs) on 23 December 2022. It was contested by RightQuark (talk · contribs) on 2022-12-23 |
| This article was nominated for deletion on 23 December 2022. The result of the discussion was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Objection to deletion proposal
editUser:JML1148 proposed deletion of this article on concerns of insufficient notability suggesting the article "Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV". The user did not specify the notability guideline the article is presumed to have fallen short of.
Sufficient coverage exists in both English and Chinese-language material that the article requires no original research. Its mention is not trivial and constitutes entire sections of official reports such as The People's Liberation Army's 37 Academic Institutions and PLA Air Force: Bomber Force Organization by the China Aerospace Studies Institute (CASI) of the United States Air Force. These official reports, written by the uncontestably most authoritative author on the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), Kenneth W. Allen, are reliable secondary sources independent of the subject (as specified in WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV). Additional information on this subject continues to present itself in Chinese-language news sources and English-language research.
The Harbin Flight Academy is the sole bomber training academy and one of only three flight schools in the Chinese Air Force. As demonstrated by the official research studies by the United States Air Force, knowledge of this institution is integral for understanding of the Chinese Air Force – an organization that has earned new focus in the West and, pending the potential of future conflicts against the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the United States, lacks no notability for an encyclopedia.
Those who remain unswayed by this justification would find that an sizable number of air force academies and training schools worldwide already documented on Wikipedia are in need of similar attention. In good faith, I've reorganized the clauses of a sentence in the article's lead to reinforce the already clear significance of being the only institution in the Chinese Air Force to train bomber pilots. RightQuark (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, and thank you for your input. I PROD'd this page because the two documents did not meet WP:SIGCOV in my books. The first contains a decently long section (3 pages of a 20-page report) where SIGCOV is debatable. It is the second document where I have more issues. It is mentioned three times in a ~250-page document, definitely a SIGCOV fail. Nonetheless, I have nominated the article for deletion through AfD, there the community can come upon a proper consensus. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 04:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- For the second document, it seems you're relying on the number of times the academy is mentioned in full name. If you read Sections, 4-27, 4-28, and 4-29 you'll see a section dedicated to the three flight academies which provides seven full-text pages of information on Harbin Flight Academy including personnel, history, the organization structure of the 1950s, early 2000s, post-2012 and the phases of education, recruits, degrees and areas of study, recruitment numbers, and leadership/staff. Further, the overall length of the document is irrelevant because it is dependent on the number and scope of institutions presented. I wouldn't question the notability of George Washington on the fact that he only occupies a few pages in a book on the top 500 most influential military leaders. Here's another report in which Harbin Flight Academy plays a notable role: Initial Fighter Pilot Training in the PLA Air Force.
- SIGCOV requires sources: "[address] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
- Which component do you contest? Is the topic not addressed directly? Not in detail? Original research is needed to extract the content? Trivially mentioned? I'd appreciate more specific clarification, thank you. RightQuark (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ahh, I seemed to have mixed up the documents. The second document is the first you listed and the first is the second you listed, in my above comment. My problem is that the documents are trivial, especially in the first document which mentions the academy just three times, with the second being borderline. Anyway, if you can add more sources that align with SIGCOV, I am happy to withdraw the nomination. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- No worries. Please see the added sources. RightQuark (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Although many of them are not SIGCOV compliant (these are still allowed to stay in the article, just not used to establish notability), there are now enough sources to justify staying on the encyclopaedia. I will now withdraw my nomination. Thank you for your contributions! JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- No worries. Please see the added sources. RightQuark (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ahh, I seemed to have mixed up the documents. The second document is the first you listed and the first is the second you listed, in my above comment. My problem is that the documents are trivial, especially in the first document which mentions the academy just three times, with the second being borderline. Anyway, if you can add more sources that align with SIGCOV, I am happy to withdraw the nomination. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)