Pratt & Whitney GG4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I came across Ayres' History and Future of Technology and realized it copies substantial material from Wikipedia. This is explicitly acknowledged in the preface of the book, but there are still Wikipedia pages that cite it (without explicit qualification), in a case of citogenesis. Further, there are numerous passages from the book that are copied so closely to verbatim from Wikipedia, that they may be confused for copyviolations in the future. I'm taking on marking that reference as such to avoid this.

Pratt & Whitney GG4 is a particularly extreme case - all other references were copyviolations and were stripped from the article, leaving only the circular reference to Ayres, who explicitly back links to the Wikipedia page as his only source. Is there a different source demonstrating notability? Tule-hog (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I replaced the Ayres reference. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - References fixed, and a quick gbooks check shows a couple of sources that could be used to expand the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the new sources on gbooks?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - References issues have been fixed now. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]