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. consensus to delete following relisting The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DHS Bolts

[edit]

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

Seems to be an advertizement for "DHS Bolts" and nothing more. WP:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING Tyros1972 Talk 11:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - DHS Bolts are an aviation industry standard for a fitting. As de Havilland no longer make aircraft how can it be an advertisement? The only source providing more information is the attached link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGreasley (talk • contribs) 12:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think I misunderstood what this is. I will have someone verify it and remove the AfD. Thank you. Tyros1972 Talk 13:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know much about the subject but I query whether a product prefix is notable and I find myself wondering whether this is a bit too "how to" for inclusion. Stalwart111 13:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not simply a product prefix. It referes to a range of bolts, to which I can contribute more, which are integral to not only de Havilland aircraft (and helped create their own industry including seals, rivets etc) but are included on all British aircraft made since the Second World War. DHS Bolts, as well as AGS Bolts (and NAS bolts) are unique product ranges which help hold an aircraft together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGreasley (talk • contribs) 16:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but what makes those products notable? Stalwart111 23:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These products are a standard hardware range on British Aircraft. They are not like other bolts. Examples of them hold aircraft as diverse as the Concorde to the Jetstream. Also it was a product line that de Havilland developed along with Aircraft and Weapons and, unlike these, is still be manufactured today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGreasley (talk • contribs) 06:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think you understand what I mean. I believe that they exist and that they have some importance in holding aircraft together. But that's not the same as notability (have a read of WP:N, specifically WP:GNG). Stalwart111 06:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me. DHS Bolts are in many ways simular to British Standard Whitworth in that they are an aviation standard of bolt. Does being a standard make it notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGreasley (talk • contribs) 10:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not in and of itself. We would likely still need coverage in reliable sources, or at least a reliable source or two to verify that it is iconic or culturally or technologically significant in some way. Just being a particular designation that a company has given its spare parts (or other companies have subsequently given its spare parts) probably isn't enough. Besides which, the example you provided is a national (now international) standard per the British Standards Institution and I would venture to suggest not even all of their "standards" would be considered notable. A standard set by a particular company, even a notable one, probably isn't notable on its own. It would need to pass WP:PRODUCT to be considered notable, in my opinion. Stalwart111 11:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've commented but haven't actually added anything by way of an opinion and this has now been re-listed twice. In that time, the article hasn't been improved and no reliable sources have been offered to substantiate any real level of notability. I just can't see how a spare parts prefix like this could possibly be notable without some form of source suggesting it is somehow significant or has had a significant impact. Stalwart111 02:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outside of a mention in a Federal Register document, I could find no secondary sources discussing DHS bolts. The topic seems to fall below notability threshold for general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. The one reference given is to a page on the Allaero website. I note that the director of Allaero is Mr Justin Paul Greasley, who looks related to the main editor of this article, so there is likely a conflict of interest, per WP:COI, and does thus look like advertising. --Mark viking (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bit irrelevant really as the article is a blatant COPYVIO of [1]--Petebutt (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly right, though the publisher in both cases would seem to be the same person who has released the content to WP by saving it here. He would only be "violating" his own copyright, I suppose. Stalwart111 04:34, 22 June 2013 (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.