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 and expand. No consensus. Now that we have an expert assisting with the article, it cam be further developed. My suggestion would be to keep and expand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pelikan tail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article is founded on the false premise that Mr Pelikan invented the vee-tailed fighter airplane airplane tail with only two control surfaces, when such a craft had already seen combat. I was going to sit on this one, but it's probably pointless to wait.

The technical subject should be discussed in the article for the Magister. There little actual aero material here is unreferenced. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep not the same design, see my comment on talk page. The claims are adequately sourced with Virginia Tech sources --Enric Naval (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It could be a different design or it could not. The VT sources were written by the same undergraduate who wrote the article, and his instructor, both in the context of the classroom, not research. Very not WP:RS. From the PowerPoint's references, the NOVA documentary and first principles might have been their only references to Pelikan's work, making this article WP:OR as well. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Air&Space magazine also mentions the Pelikan tail[1](pages 2 and 3). I added this source as an inline reference to the article. Looks like this happened on 1998. To me, it looks very clearly like a different tail. The Boeing_X-32 article bears a photo where you can see clearly the differences with a vee tail (the pelikan tail has a flat surface between the tails) Image:USAF_X32B_cdp_boe_stovl_010.jpg. Mind you, the article is badly sourced with no inline references, but that's not grounds for deletion (I changed that a bit). One of the VT sources is actually a paper published at "42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit", so it's been published and can probably be used. Both VT sources have a good bunch of sources at the end, so they probably meet verifiability standards, altought the PDF is sourcing nothing and should probably be reworked into an example of an academic attempt to build a plane model with a pelikan tail (already did that). I attributed stuff so it's clear what is from the original analysis from Boeing and what is from those students --Enric Naval (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, NN proposed design. It's mentioned in Ultimate Fighter: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (ISBN 0760317925), for one paragraph. Seems like it's WP:V but not really WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's really non-notable then I'll go for merging on another article. Until now, V-tail looks like the best one to merge into --Enric Naval (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Enric et al. I'm changing to merge with V-tail. Seems worthy of mention there, even if there isn't enough for a whole article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I just found an article at V-tail. A note could be added there. Same advantages are cited for V-tail as Pelikan tail. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the Pelikan tail appears to have weight problems that the V-tail does not have. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But I think the Pelikan weight problem and V stress problem are both a manifestation of the need to apply greater forces at the control surfaces. We had more discussion at the talk page. Potatoswatter (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hum, ok, so, that totally falls out of my area of expertise, and the sources don't make any comparison like that. I'll leave those details to the guys from WP:AVIATION :) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I made a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Pelikan_tail_vs_V-tail to attract editors interested on the matter --Enric Naval (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• thanks :v) Potatoswatter (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also posted at WT:AIR, per recommendation at WT:AVIATION --Enric Naval (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - To the V-tail article - the differences between the two seem mainly ones of minor details, one being basically a variant of the other. Both articles are not very long, and so coverage on one page would help both topics. - BillCJ (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – In response to the RfC, I've posted my thoughts as an experienced aerospace engineer on the talk page for this article. My opinion is that this AfD is a bit precipate, so I'd encourage admins reviewing the recommendations here not hurry to close it in order to give more time for discussion. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for clarifying the situation! Potatoswatter (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2008 (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.