User talk:Edweirdo/Maximum reported B-17 & B-24 bomb loads

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 Userfy for possible smerging. Policy arguments below do not support having this as a separate article (WP:NOT#INFO, WP:NOR) but some of the material may be appropriate in the articles on the individual aircraft. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maximum reported B-17 & B-24 bomb loads

Maximum reported B-17 & B-24 bomb loads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic essay at best; original research at worst. Indeed, on the article's talk page, the contributor gives his reason for writing it as the apparent absence of any such table in published secondary sources. An impressive piece of work, but not what I think one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Rlandmann (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom. - BillCJ (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Strategic bombing during World_War II#Allied bombing statistics 1939–45 Colonel Warden (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or maybe merge into specific articles about the planes? Agree with the nom that this is an essay Corpx (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A notable, if specialised topic. If we merge it to Strategic bombing during World_War II#Allied bombing statistics 1939–45, but then that article size becomes too large, do we split it off again? Martintg (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think the salvagable encyclopedic content may only be a few sentences; I don't think it would overwhelm the article(s) being merged into. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge appropriate data and info to "Strat. bombing", B-17, and/or B-24 articles. LanceBarber (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Possible some text may be salvaged into appropriate articles. MilborneOne (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge, probably to strategic bombing. There is key content here if put into a larger context. While the British bombers had a greater bombload, they had less defensive capability and less accuracy, where the US design philosophy, especially on the B-17, was essentially the reverse. This led to a natural day/night separation between the US and UK effort, but also touches on the British "dehousing" strategy that was easiest for bombers optimized for area, not point, attack. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, though a sentence or two might prove useful across other articles, this is overly specific and borders OR. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as OR, but merge some of the content cited from secondary sources into the articles on the two bombers. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge. Only the few conclusions drawn by the author are original research. Otherwise the article is full of verifiable references and information that may not be found elsewhere in a single article, and would be lost in deletion. It's a specialized topic but that's not reason enough to delete it. - Jack-z 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. After deletion, where will inquiring minds go to find the true bomb-carrying capacity and range of the two heavy bombers deployed against the Nazis by the United States? Will they be left to the tender mercy of the popular author in the article’s first footnote who states that a B-24 could carry the near equivalent weight of the largest bomb used in Europe, the 22,000lb Grand Slam not to the Bielefeld Viaduct approximately 350 miles into Germany (which was how far the Special Variant Lancaster hauled it) but an additional 500 miles! while putting up a good fight against the determined enemy defenses? This is comparable to someone stating that the Space Transportation System (Space Shuttle) could place all the gold in Fort Knox in its cargo bay and deliver it to low earth orbit. Does anyone care about the truth, about the facts? Does Wikipedia not see a role here? When it has the opportunity to inform, clearly its most important mission, does it wish to remain silent?

The fact the the article doesn’t fit existing templates would seem secondary. I did not start out thinking that I would research a subject and publish the results in Wikipedia. I set out to ascertain whether the B-24 did the job being handled by the B-17 as well or better than the older design. Data on bomb loads and range are all over the place, and some reports claimed that the B-24 could carry a heavier bombload faster and farther than the B-17. In order to save other curious souls the trouble of trawling through endless costly books and articles bearing on the subject I decided to write the article in Wikipedia so that others could benefit from my experience. I have not, to my knowledge, presented my opinions but rather have tried to “set the table” with information, backed by excellent sources, for others to pick from.

If anyone of those finding the article worthy of deletion would quote a sentence or two that is “unencyclopedic” I would be grateful. I’d like to grasp the reason for deleting something that I think makes Wikipedia better.Edweirdo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You may not have set out to research but by the description of your actions, that is what you did do.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2008 (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.

Cleanup

Has begun. LanceBarber 19:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Point

Can somebody explain the point of this article, the few facts could be in the relevant articles, and why only B-17 and B-24. MilborneOne (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A very good question! As I was making changes, I got the funny felling that all I was doing was putting "lipstick on the pig." FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC).

The point of the article can be found in the first paragraph: "The purpose is to tie information of the relative effectiveness of the two bombers to real data and actual practice". In the first footnote, you will find a popular author stating a bomb load and range for the B-24 over the Continent of Europe during WW2 that is absurd. The point of my article was to give those interested in the subject a comparison of these two bombers based on reports of the pilots and crew so that when reading books making wild claims they would have a way to sort through them. Why only the B-17 & B-24? The planes were produced by the same industrial base to meet the same threat in roughly the same time period. The different responses by different designers makes the comparison interesting, I think. Edweirdo (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So the point of the article is to compare two aircraft built at the same time in the United States so readers can check that the bomb loads in references are correct. ! Still not convinced I dont see why the info can not be in the B-17 and B-24 article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it important that you be convinced? And what is the point you are making: that all references to the B-17 be included in one huge article? Not everyone reading the B-17 article wants to wade through every subsidiary article. Also, the B-17 and B-24 articles have links in an appropriate place to this one. Does "cleanup" mean consolidation? How about combining all bomber articles under a giant offering titled "Bombers".Edweirdo (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No it is not important that I am convinced - just if I am not then I will consider a Request for Deletion. Dont have a problem with child articles just the fact that this is comparing two random different aircraft. Perhaps we should have Lancaster v Halifax etc etc. Links are not a problem and not a reason for keeping an article. MilborneOne (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is in no way comparing "two random different aircraft" (nice phrasing). The Consolidated Aircraft Corporation was asked to produce B-17s like Lockheed/Vega and Douglas (in addition to Boeing), and they asked, and were permitted, to build a design of their own, the B-24. The question of which of these two designs worked out best is relevant and interesting to some people but not apparantly to you. Edweirdo (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks a lot like Original Research to me. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The article resulted from my failure to find an 8th Air Force table for the B-17 and B-24 showing, for targets at various distances, the minimum amount of fuel and maximum weight of bombs that each could or should carry. The Crowood Aviation Series book "Avro Lancaster" by Ken Delve shows such a table for the Lancaster and Halifax bombers on page 56. In lieu of such facts giving the operational practices of the commanders in the field, I created a spreadsheet for every mission reported by pilots and crews showing range to the target and weight and types of bombs dropped, etc. I reported the maxima of these data to establish, roughly, the extreme capabilities of the two aircraft as employed over Europe, eg, the top and bottom entries of a table. I thought that by writing the article in Wikipedia someone who knew of such tables used by the United States Army Air Forces in WW2 might edit them in. I question whether this is Original Research. Edweirdo (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an expansion to include other bombers throughout the war. Problem with this is which version do you use? B-17s alone have 15 varients (including 3 prototypes) and B-24s have over 50 (including USAAC, USN, and RAF) including 20+ prototypes and cargo varients. Including even just the B-29 would add 19 or 20 (depending if you add the Tu-4). How do you compare between the B-17B and B-17D varients much less adding in other types of bombers. I say delete. (By the way...this article is linked to the B-17s article which will have to have the link removed as well) Leobold1 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)