Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy equipment modelling

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 no consensus. I'm being bold here and declaring no consensus. I suggest you discuss mergers and redirects on the appropriate talk pages as an alternative to deletion. Missvain (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy equipment modelling

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Heavy equipment modelling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find any sources that back up the claims that this is a hobby. Rusf10 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the only source you have, it does come even close to passing WP:GNG. A series of articles written by one man in an obscure magazine is not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not one source; it's a collection of them which demonstrates that there is extensive professional coverage of this field. As the nay-sayers seem to have trouble reading what's put in front of them, let's list the periodicals:
  1. Truck, Plant & Machinery Model World
  2. Diecast Collector
  3. Earthmovers
  4. The Diecast Magazine
  5. Classic Plant & Machinery
  6. Machinery Movers
  7. UK Plant Operators
Checking out these first of these – Truck, Plant & Machinery Model World Magazine – we see that it is "dedicated to the latest diecast reviews of construction, mining, lifting, heavy haulage and agricultural scale models." This shows that there's a substantial hobby which supports both model makers and a press. The author listing this bibliography is clearly an expert in this field who knows what he's talking about. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew Davidson, And were you able to look inside any of those to verify that they are real magazines, with proper coverage, rather then some hoaxes or reprints of press releases? On a side note, it boggles my mind people still write this stuff in non-digitized format. I can see this being blogged about, but who would pay for a magazine on this in this day and age? If this is not a hoax, the world is a strange place... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've looked inside a sample issue and confirmed that it's typical of the modelling press. That issue was 72 pages – mostly reviews of particular models. For example, on page 20, it reviews a grand model of the Liebherr LTM 1750-9.1 Mobile Crane, "Shown in prototype form at the 2019 Bauma trade show, and released in February 2020, the Liebherr LTM 1750-9.1 is now available and what a cracking model it is, surely a candidate for Model of the Year 2020...". We see from this that there are trade shows and prizes and coverage – the usual structure of a significant hobby. I know what I'm talking about because I have taken the trouble to actually find and read such sources. The contrary arguments claiming that there is no coverage or that it is a hoax are ill-informed and so are correspondingly weak. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that, elsewhere, Piotrus argues that academic sources are not necessary and that hobby press publishers such as Bellona and Osprey are adequate. Models of construction equipment are a comparatively uncontroversial topic and so the level of sourcing required is comparatively undemanding. So, the escalating demands made here are just game-playing and wikilawyering. I have demonstrated that there are numerous magazines covering this field in detail. Additional meta-analysis is not required to establish notability. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andrew Davidson, Nobody would ever expect you to change your vote. But please don't misinterpret my arguments. I am not saying we need academic sources, lesser quality ones, like trade journals and hobby magazines you found, will do. The issue is that neither of them seems to discuss the concept of "Heavy equipment modelling" in depth. What you have shown us are is that there are reviews of individual toy models. Interesting, but the existence of reviews for a series of toys doesn't make the concept of this series being notable. OR, SYNTH, etc. Please show which articles discuss the hobby of "heavy equipment modelling". No need for academic works, an article about the hobby's history, in one of those hobby magazines, will do. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer to ignore Piotrus' bludgeoning but it sadly seems necessary to rebut this lest the closer take it seriously and discount my !vote. Piotrus' comment simply demonstrate lack of familiarity with the extensive sources. These don't just review models but report on the numerous shows at which these models are exhibited. They report on the competitions and prizes. They report on the collections and collectors and so explicitly provide "background on the collecting hobby". Then there are special features on scratch-building and other modelling techniques. All these aspects are quite standard for model builders. We have corresponding articles for the modelling of aircraft, commercial vehicles, railways, ships and more. Note that the corresponding articles about horses, robots have no sources at all but nobody cares because these topics are quite obvious and uncontroversial. There is no case for deletion and there are obvious alternatives per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. ... Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andrew Davidson, Bottom line, you still fail to demonstrate the topic received coverage. WP:ITEXISTS is sadly not enough. I am personally aware of a number of hobbies which are at least, if not more, popular, but I can't even write stubs for them as there are no sources for them. Which is while a while ago I wrote an academic article on hobby shops (for board games and like), so it can be used to expand our linked weak article: [1]. Perhaps you'd be kind to use it - COI makes it a bit more difficult for me to cite myself. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have demonstrated ample coverage. Piotrus seems to be obsessing too much about the word hobby, which is not part of the topic's title. These models are not just made as a hobby but appear in a professional context too -- as promotion, executive toys, showpieces, &c. For an impressive display of this, see Equipment World in which a model of a Liebherr crane is picked up by a full size crane which is then picked up by an even bigger crane and so on to the 5th level! This nicely demonstrates the enormous spectrum and scale of equipment sizes. These "models" can weigh up to 650 kg and so are not just your average Dinky toy. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andrew Davidson, Nice argument, but it's all WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. We are still waiting for you to show us a single reliable source that makes the same argument - that this is a notable phenomenon. I would be very happy if we had sources to save this, but sadly, as long as we don't allow original research, many things which exist and which are even important to tens of thousands of people are not notable. Feel free to try to create Wikipedia:Notability (hobbies) guideline or such and get community consensus for declaring such concepts notable based on some supplementary criteria, such as the existence of trade magazines or fanzines. Shrug. It worked for sport biographies among others... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already produced numerous sources which are quite adequate to demonstrate the notability of the field. But as these are buried by the nominator's bludgeoning and ridiculous demands, I shall comment further in the relisting below. Suffice it to say here that the claims of OR and SYNTH are unsupported by logic or evidence. I have no special knowledge of this field and so all the details and sources I present are the result of studying the numerous sources which are out there covering this field. I am now quite well-informed because I have taken the time and trouble to read and understand these. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE gives some results but nothing which provide sufficient notability CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very niche hobby with no sources to back up its notability. If sources are found, it should still be draftified for failing WP:V unless someone actually uses those theoretical sources to improve this mess. PS. If this is kept, we need a better name, the only scholarly source to use this terms refers to software for modelling such equipment for CGI/design purposes. Overall, I can see this being briefly mentioned in some article on modelling hobby, as one of the many subfields of it. It does not warrant a stand alone article, which after all can only be expected to become another fan-list of related toys. What else is thee to say about this? Yes, such models exist, some people collect them, shrug. If nobody writes about the hobby - its history, significance, reception, cultural impact - then it's not a topic for an encyclopedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Scale model#Construction vehicles - An extremely niche subset of the modeling hobby, that really does not have enough coverage discussing it, specifically, enough to warrant it being split into an independent article. It is, however, already covered in the main article on the scale modeling hobby in the section on Construction vehicles, so I think redirecting there would be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that what Andrew Davidson is saying, and what Piotrus has missed, is that the online version of the magazine is only the reviews, and a teaser for buying the print version. The notes against various issues point to what else is in the print version, the stuff that Andrew Davidson is referring to. That said, given that they are only available in print, I highly doubt that anyone in this discussion has read them to see how in depth they are. Personally I'm looking for things like Wagner 1968, which isn't a magazine for hobbyists, but an article about a hobby, in that case railway scale models, or Shapiro 1980 which is about automobile models. I haven't found anything that I can read in that vein myself. There is not even a mention of a hobby in Haddock 2007, for example.

    The best that I have is Louis H. Hertz, a fairly widely used expert in the field from what I can tell, saying that there is not a discrete sub-topic here and that model car collecting encompasses everything, to a degree varying largely at the whim of the individual collector, from "ordinary or stock automobiles, racing cars ([…]), buses, trucks, specialized service vehicles (especially fire engines), military vehicles, including such equipment as self-propelled gun carriers and mobile rocket launchers ; construction equipment, including bulldozers and road rollers, tractors and related farm equipment; mobile showmen's engines, customized automobiles, hot rods, dragsters, the recently popular so-called "funny cars", early self-propelled road carriages, and so on." (Hertz 1970, p. 11).

    • Wagner, Glenn (Nov 1968). "Scale Model Railroading". Boy's Life. Vol. 58, no. 11. pp. 39–40, 44–46. ISSN 0006-8608.
    • Shapiro, William E., ed. (1980). "Automobile models". The New Book of Knowledge. Grolier. pp. 534–535. ISBN 9780717205110.
    • Haddock, Keith (2007). The Earthmover Encyclopedia. MotorBooks International. ISBN 9781610592093.
    • Hertz, Louis Heilbroner (1970). The Complete Book of Building and Collecting Model Automobiles. Crown Publishers. ISBN 9780517502259.
  • Uncle G (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncle G, My point is exactly that: the existence of a magazine for hobbyists is not enough to prove that the hobby is notable, whereas an article about a hobby would. Thank you for doing an independent source review. This makes me wonder if the topic of automobile model collecting should be separate from the article on automobile models. Well, first someone needs to expand the existing one, I guess... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncle G is mistaken. The sample magazines which are online seem to be complete. Their own source analysis is inadequate because it's based on North American sources whereas this activity seems to be mainly European. For example, Haddock's Earthmover Encyclopedia is explicitly incomplete and regional: "It is regrettable that many hundreds of European manufacturers ... as well as manufacturers on other continents ... had to be omitted due to space restrictions" Likewise the opinion of an American model railroader from the 1960s is not going to be any help with later European activity. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More evidence It's quite interesting to see the spectacular models which have been exhibited in Europe. One of the big shows is Modelshow Europe which specifically focusses on this sort of model and has been held in Ede for about 25 years now. To grasp the scale of this activity, see coverage such as this. And, for another example of magazine print coverage which details the collectors, constructors and other demographics, see Equipment World: Construction scale models... This is from 2014 and so is more up-to-date than the irrelevant sources presented by Uncle G above. The topic here is clearly a substantial genre of model engineering and scale modeling just like aircraft, commercial vehicles, railways, ships and the rest. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think YouTube video by "CranesEtcTV" is a very reliable source - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, if you have to resort to YouTube to try and prove notability, then the topic probably just isn't notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. Using YouTube is just like using Google Books to find sources – it's a common carrier, not a publisher; and it's part of Alphabet now too. The main difference is that what you get are videos rather than books and these are increasingly polished and professional now. What matters most is the person or people that use YouTube to publish their work. In this case, CranesEtcTV is an authority on the subject, as detailed by Equipment World, which is a professional publication written by authoritative experts too. The key point about these two sources is that they are accessible rather than being offline or behind a paywall. But it doesn't appear that GCB or Rusf10 have actually looked at them as they don't actually discuss their content. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, youtube is not the same thing as Google books. With a few exceptions, youtube videos are mostly WP:SPS, they're not reliable. Why is CranesEtcTV a authority on this subject? What reliable source cites them as an authority? Or are they just a self-proclaimed authority?--Rusf10 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Equipment World cites them as a source. The Cranes Etc reviews in the press, on their website and YouTube channel are a clearly massive influence. Their YouTube channel has had over 200 million views. This AfD has just a handful of opinions and only 276 views. It's we here who are comparative nobodies. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Scale model#Construction vehicles. Unlike other topics there, I can't see enough here to justify a {{main}} article. That section and this article are of almost the same size. If we have relevant information somewhere about software modelling, a WP:TWODABS DAB page might be justified; but I haven't found it. Narky Blert (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Independent sources do not support a standalone article. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons cited above. Article has potential. WP:Not paper, and deletion shoukld not be preferred resolution. See WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft. I do not sources showing this to be separately notable from scale modelling generally. Something that caught my eye here is that the article says that Chinese manufacturers "have been entering the market", couched as if this is something that is happening right now, but it says this as of 2012. There is no indication of new information being reported on this. I expect that if the field is notable, the status of new developments would be reported somewhere. Unless and until separate notability can be shown for this specific form of scale modeling, the title can be redirected to Scale model#Construction vehicles. BD2412 T 03:09, 15 May 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heavy_equipment_modelling&oldid=1023570231"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy equipment modelling, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.