785:, but the article focuses on everything but The Ruptured Duck. For example, "Doolittle chose the relatively new B-25B." - that focuses on Doolittle. A sentence "The Ruptured Duck was chosen by Doolittle" focuses on the main topic, namely, The Ruptured Duck. The section on Preparations for the Doolittle Raid should only focus on how The Ruptured Duck was prepared for the Doolittle Raid. The Origins of the name section focuses too much on Lawson and not on the plane. The Doolittle Raid section should be limited to The Ruptured Duck's role in that raid. The Crew of The Ruptured Duck should focus on the plane as well. Instead of "Ted W. Lawson was the pilot.", it should be "The Ruptured Duck was piloted by Ted W. Lawson." Ted W. Lawson's birth date of 7 March 1917 listed in the article has no relevance to the plane. There appears to be no effort in the development of the article to focus on the plane. This has lead to using source material for its content on everything but The Ruptured Duck. I iVoted weak keep because the topic does meet
746:
markings, the choice was to portray in his words, the most prominent or "best known" of the B-25s in the raid. When asking for a direct quote, the curator indicated that he would respond via email. The very colorful markings were recreated by an actual wartime illustrator who was brought into the museum; the nose art is now further recreated by other artists, again choosing this scheme over all others in the
Doolittle Raid. FWiW
727:- Per nom. No reliable sources cited to give indication of notability, merely primary sources, models and pins, which of themselves don't provide notabilty as required by WP:N. The article itself is more about the raid and the crew, which can be, and probably are,covered elsewhere. The article does claim notability for the subject, so if the citing issues are addressed on time, I would support it being kept. -
309:(Comment) I cant see any evidence that the actual aircraft is any more notable than the others in the raid that requires it to have a stand-alone article. If I felt it met the GNG I would not have raised the AfD! Nothing in this article that cant be (or already is) in the Doolittle or Lawson article.
653:
The only thing I need to do is stay black and die. I'm not in the habit of playing connect the dots very often, especially when it's blatantly clear on the discussion about the airplane and the
Doolittle raid. Currently the overall sentiment on the Doolittle raid and participants is redirect to that
606:
BillZ, you made the statement "a restored B-25 in the markings of "The
Ruptured Duck", the most prominent aircraft used on the Doolittle Raid." Is this actually something that the museum has stated? If so, and if it's been reported in a reliable source somewhere, then that would assert notability,
704:
is one of the last survivors and in recounting his story aboard aircraft #7, "The
Ruptured Duck", he essentially links the story of the aircraft and its role in the raid to his personal recollections. Finally, the choice of the "ruptured duck" symbol for the aircraft nose art was important as it
745:
was specifically chosen at the
Pacific Aviation Museum, led to a contact with the curator and staff at the museum. The curator indicated that the aircraft itself was to be a representative aircraft, essentially a display piece that would dramatize the Doolittle Raid. In choosing the colors and
323:
There are a vast number of articles that are "not required" - pretty much anything that's not on the "vital articles" list. However not having a requirement to do something is a long way from being compelled to, or it even being a good idea to, delete something that does now
554:, Hawaii also features a 1942 exhibit in which the centerpiece is a restored B-25 in the markings of "The Ruptured Duck", the most prominent aircraft used on the Doolittle Raid. The recent cursory google search of the aircraft, "The Ruptured Duck" identifies five separate
200:
Non-notable aircraft. one of sixteen in the
Doolittle Raid, none of the others have an article. Most of the article makes very little mention of the actual aircraft and gives no indication of individual notability. Sections of the article repeat information from pilot's
398:
and the other 15 do not have articles; however, the other 15 didn't have a book written or multiple films made in which they were a central "character" (for lack of a better term). I think there is enough here to meet the individual aircraft notability
481:
The why did a reputable museum, in possession of a perfectly significant B-25 with its own history, chose instead to display the aircraft under a "false flag" (something that's hugely controversial in museum circles) as this particular aircraft?
691:
Besides being Lawson's aircraft that is prominently described in both his book and the film adaptation, the "The
Ruptured Duck" was chosen to commemorate the Doolittle Raid at the Pacific Aviation Museum, and appears as the example for
761:
That's original research, and we can't cite that in the article. However, if it were to be published in a reliable source such as a book or newspaper article from a reliable publisher, it would be usable then, Know any authors? ;) -
169:
697:
408:
654:
article, nothing about the airplane is all that notable, I realize you may in good faith trying to meet a end for the encyclopedia but if I wanted to be detailed I would have written more.
163:
350:
per nom. Not sufficiently individually notable in terms of the GNG, any more than thousands of other named aircraft during the Second World War. Indicative of our overwhelming U.S.
122:
571:
52:. There seems to be consensus that what (relatively little) content there is specifically about this aircraft is better suited for inclusion in the parent article.
252:
230:
706:
95:
90:
99:
129:
82:
284:
A rationale of "Not notable, because other potentially related articles don't exist" is nonsense (and an experienced editor should know better).
369:. Individual aircraft have a very high notability threshold. This, one of sixteen in a raid, however notable that raid, doesn't meet it. --
543:
184:
151:
701:
639:
You need to give an article/articles where this should be redirected, and a rationale as to why which gives releveant guidelines. -
592:
I know how much you love all things aviation-related, but none of these constitute anything remotely close to reliable sources.
17:
145:
607:
and probably satisfy GNG. The article itself also makes a similar unattributed statment, which also needs to be supported. -
555:
420:
reliable works of which the aircraft is the subject in the first 100 or so entries. Which suggests a failure to meet GNG.
141:
815:
798:
771:
755:
736:
718:
680:
663:
648:
634:
616:
601:
583:
516:
491:
472:
451:
429:
378:
361:
336:
318:
304:
264:
242:
222:
64:
191:
659:
630:
86:
532:, the notability that was seen was that it was the aircraft that featured most closely to the account in Lawson's
834:
538:
533:
524:- Since I originated the article, I wish to provide some background. As it was derived from the host articles on
404:
40:
78:
70:
425:
351:
709:, officially the National Defense Lapel Button issued to personnel honorably discharged from service. FWiW
503:
per nom. None of the sources appears to provide in-depth coverage of this aircraft (I know for a fact that
696:, models (both in scale and in electronic versions). "The Ruptured Duck" also appears as the subject of a
597:
563:
487:
468:
447:
332:
300:
157:
830:
655:
626:
314:
260:
238:
218:
36:
400:
794:
387:
374:
358:
811:
177:
421:
789:
but deleting the article and starting from scratch to focus on the plane is a viable option. --
593:
483:
464:
443:
328:
296:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
829:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
767:
732:
676:
644:
612:
512:
310:
256:
234:
214:
790:
370:
355:
442:
of a work for it to meet notability? The requirement per WP:N is 'significant coverage'.
807:
751:
714:
579:
529:
395:
210:
206:
55:
786:
782:
559:
525:
292:
202:
327:"Being required" is an irrelevance here. The only question is, "Is it permitted?"
116:
693:
763:
728:
672:
640:
608:
547:
508:
291:
recognisable by its name. Does the nominator really claim that it doesn't meet
668:
747:
710:
575:
567:
700:
issued to commemorate the
Doolittle Raid. A macabre connection is that
209:. Notability is not inherited from either the pilot or the raid. The
823:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
551:
279:
way is the encyclopedia improved by deleting articles like this?
390:, that does not mean that the "child" subject is automatically
287:
As to basic notability, this is a 70 year old aircraft that's
505:
The
Doolittle Raid 1942: America's First Strike Back at Japan
213:
article already says as much as needed on the
Ruptured Duck.
394:
notable. Yes, this is one of 16 aircraft involved in the
741:
The interesting suggestion that the markings/scheme of
112:
108:
104:
463:. All I'm seeing is toy models and forum discussions.
176:
438:
Where is the requirement for the aircraft to be the
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
837:). No further edits should be made to this page.
253:list of Military-related deletion discussions
231:list of Aviation-related deletion discussions
190:
8:
251:Note: This debate has been included in the
229:Note: This debate has been included in the
250:
228:
806:, article isn't about the aircraft. --
416:- google books does not throw up any
7:
544:Pacific Aviation Museum Pearl Harbor
536:, as well as the accompanying film,
24:
564:B-25 featured in the wartime film
702:Doolittle Raider David Thatcher
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
669:I'm going back to my coughin'.
1:
816:21:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
799:10:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
772:02:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
705:represents a highly esteemed
65:09:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
756:19:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
737:16:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
719:14:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
681:16:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
664:14:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
649:11:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
635:04:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
617:11:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
602:02:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
584:00:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
574:based on the aircraft. FWiW
517:23:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
492:11:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
473:23:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
452:21:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
430:20:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
409:20:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
379:19:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
362:18:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
337:11:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
319:17:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
305:16:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
265:16:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
243:16:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
223:16:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
388:notability is not inherited
854:
539:Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo
826:Please do not modify it.
79:The Ruptured Duck (B-25)
71:The Ruptured Duck (B-25)
32:Please do not modify it.
560:account of the aircraft
542:. The recently opened
707:U.S. military award
781:- The topic meets
48:The result was
743:The Ruptured Duck
556:reference sources
267:
245:
63:
845:
828:
656:Hell In A Bucket
627:Hell In A Bucket
562:, a link to the
558:that include an
352:WP:Systemic Bias
205:article and the
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
853:
852:
848:
847:
846:
844:
843:
842:
841:
835:deletion review
824:
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
851:
849:
840:
839:
819:
818:
801:
775:
774:
740:
739:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
621:
620:
619:
604:
530:Doolittle Raid
519:
497:
496:
495:
494:
476:
475:
457:
456:
455:
454:
433:
432:
411:
401:Vulcan's Forge
396:Doolittle raid
381:
364:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
325:
285:
281:
280:
269:
268:
247:
246:
211:Doolittle Raid
207:Doolittle Raid
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
850:
838:
836:
832:
827:
821:
820:
817:
813:
809:
805:
802:
800:
796:
792:
788:
784:
780:
777:
776:
773:
769:
765:
760:
759:
757:
753:
749:
744:
738:
734:
730:
726:
723:
722:
720:
716:
712:
708:
703:
699:
695:
682:
678:
674:
670:
667:
666:
665:
661:
657:
652:
651:
650:
646:
642:
638:
637:
636:
632:
628:
625:
622:
618:
614:
610:
605:
603:
599:
595:
591:
588:
587:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
540:
535:
531:
527:
523:
520:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
499:
498:
493:
489:
485:
480:
479:
478:
477:
474:
470:
466:
462:
459:
458:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
436:
435:
434:
431:
427:
423:
422:GraemeLeggett
419:
415:
412:
410:
406:
402:
397:
393:
389:
385:
382:
380:
376:
372:
368:
365:
363:
360:
357:
353:
349:
346:
345:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
321:
320:
316:
312:
308:
307:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
283:
282:
278:
274:
271:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
249:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
227:
226:
225:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
203:Ted W. Lawson
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
825:
822:
803:
778:
742:
724:
623:
594:Clarityfiend
589:
568:nose artwork
537:
521:
504:
500:
484:Andy Dingley
465:Clarityfiend
460:
444:Andy Dingley
439:
417:
413:
391:
383:
366:
347:
329:Andy Dingley
297:Andy Dingley
288:
276:
272:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
725:Weak Delete
548:Ford Island
418:independent
311:MilborneOne
257:MilborneOne
235:MilborneOne
215:MilborneOne
164:free images
791:Uzma Gamal
526:Ted Lawson
507:doesn't).
399:threshold.
371:Necrothesp
356:Buckshot06
58:Sandstein
831:talk page
808:Shorthate
779:Weak keep
37:talk page
833:or in a
624:Redirect
528:and the
386:: while
277:possible
275:In what
123:View log
39:or in a
694:artwork
590:Comment
522:Comment
440:subject
414:Comment
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
804:delete
787:WP:GNG
783:WP:GNG
764:BilCat
729:BilCat
673:BilCat
641:BilCat
609:BilCat
572:models
509:Nick-D
501:Delete
461:Delete
367:Delete
359:(talk)
348:Delete
324:exist.
293:WP:GNG
142:Google
100:delete
50:delete
698:stamp
289:still
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
812:talk
795:talk
768:talk
752:talk
748:Bzuk
733:talk
715:talk
711:Bzuk
677:talk
660:talk
645:talk
631:talk
613:talk
598:talk
580:talk
576:Bzuk
570:and
552:Oahu
534:book
513:talk
488:talk
469:talk
448:talk
426:talk
405:talk
384:Keep
375:talk
333:talk
315:talk
301:talk
273:Keep
261:talk
239:talk
219:talk
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
546:on
392:not
192:TWL
121:– (
814:)
797:)
770:)
758:.
754:)
735:)
721:.
717:)
679:)
671:-
662:)
647:)
633:)
615:)
600:)
586:.
582:)
566:,
550:,
515:)
490:)
471:)
450:)
428:)
407:)
377:)
354:.
335:)
317:)
303:)
295:?
263:)
255:.
241:)
233:.
221:)
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
810:(
793:(
766:(
750:(
731:(
713:(
675:(
658:(
643:(
629:(
611:(
596:(
578:(
511:(
486:(
467:(
446:(
424:(
403:(
373:(
331:(
313:(
299:(
259:(
237:(
217:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.