Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BUMMMFITCHH

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. Merging and moving discussions can be opened on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BUMMMFITCHH

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

Unsourced, perhaps original research; what sources exist appear to be taken from this article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A well known aviation mnemonic (or a variation of it). Have added some references. It is a check that I have been using since the early 1990s. The check that I was taught and use is BUMFFPICHH, this was taught to me by a graduate of the Empire Test Pilots' School, the check appears to date back to WWII or earlier, an explanation of its origin would be nice. The sentence on rhyming with an ancient word for fifteen is not entirely relevant, seems out of place and as it is uncited could be original research. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My discussions on the talk page asking whether this article should be nominated for AFD or not were based on not having found any refs. The challenge seems to have been met with two refs now found, which shows that this is a notable subject. It does tend to prove that if you shake the tree that some apples will fall out of it! - Ahunt (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know a little more of those references; do they actually say "BUMMMFITCH"? The second reference implies that it's actually about "UMP and flaps"; I'm not sure what the first reference is actually claiming to be a source of in the first sentence. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a full stop to separate the sentence cited using Trevor Thom, which for further clarity is this text; A shorter version for simple aircraft is BMFFH; many variations exist for different aircraft types. The Spitfire check is verbatim from the manual, what I am noting is that in both cases the letters are in order (BMFFH and UMPF) and are shortened versions of the article title. It occurs to me that this is a British/Australian check as we have GUMPS for the US (and Canada?) and the newly found BUMPH which is the same thing for Australian pilots. Seems to be a need for some merging here, possibly into a new article Pre-landing check mnemonics or similar. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a better idea than deleting this, actually. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have just added a written source for BUMFFPICHH. All the associated articles need looking at for a plan to merge them (if this is the consensus way forward of course). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's another good one: PRAWNS. This stuff is well worth keeping as lives are lost if these mnemonics are not used. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADICTIONARY. There is no sign of information on the development etc of the the phrase/mnemonic, which would be required to expand this beyond a dictionary definition. I note that the idea of this being important to keep for safety is a WP:USEFUL fallacy. I have no opinion on having a new article called Pre-landing check mnemonics but there would need to be more than a list of dictionary definitions for each one. It may be easier to find encyclopedic information talking about them generally than individually. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTADICTIONARY is meant to prevent articles as simply definitions of words and terms. Encyclopedias to in-depth to the subjects, like the "Checklist" and "Aircraft type examples" sections of this article which would be inappropriate for a dictionary. --Oakshade (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. It is quite an expanded dictionary definition, perhaps, but only because it is a quite a complex term to explain owing to all the terms in the acronym and the specialist nature. WP is not Dicdefs on steroids. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to pre-landing checklist (or similar) and merge with the other similar articles, editing aggressively to reduce emphasis on any particular acronym and adding new material from other sources regarding the checklist actions themselves. -- The Anome (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some of this information should be made into an entry at Wiktionary. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2010 (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.