Talk:Dynamic Sport

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 October 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dynamic Sport article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Sourcing

I share the concern voiced by User:Piotrus at AfD. User:Ahunt refimprove is a valid one - this is claiming to be a Start, with 1 primary, 1 commercial, 1 other. It's on the weak side, and was noted as such. As creator that's my feedback. I've compromised with the primary tag, but it's refimprove - one of the sources is WP:UGCish but that's rs tag has been removed too. Huh? Widefox; talk 19:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "other" is in fact the World Directory of Leisure Aviation, an independent third party ref, a global publication with an editorial board. It doesn't get much more "RS" than that. This AfD deals with the acceptability of the WDLA as a ref. Primary refs are reliable when about themselves and the one cited outlines a relationship between the two companies. All-Aero has oversight (ie it isn't a wiki) but is only used as a ref for the founder, founding date and location, which is fairly non-controversial. Which facts are in dispute? - Ahunt (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)My point is it's weak sourcing, 2 non-primary. Am I right that all-aero is UGCish - is it a mix of UGC and curated like IMDB?

From AfD: "Keep clear precedent is any aircraft manufacturer is notable for inclusion, it could do with more reference but that shouldnt be a reason for deletion, I also dont see anything wrong with the World Directory of Leisure Aviation as a source it certainly is not a "sale catalogue" but a directory as it says on the tin." User:MilborneOne. Not being aircrafty, a link may help. Precedent on one hand, but (AFAIK) policy on the other. Seems borderline WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:GNG, although I can understand logic of a presumption of notability for aircraft manufacturers. Widefox; talk 19:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you have now tagged this as relying too much on primary refs when only one sentence is sourced to a primary ref and they rest are third party refs. - Ahunt (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I explained it above "compromised".) Widefox; talk 19:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't understand why you added that tag. I have now added another independent third party ref (in Polish), including criticism, and so now everything in the article except one sentence is sourced to third party refs, so i will remove the tag as it is not longer justified. - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I have now added more independent third party refs and expanded the article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]