Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beechcraft Model 40

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Opinions for keeping and merging seem to be split so the best place to discuss merging is on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beechcraft Model 40

Non-notable one-off prototype aircraft with no external references. Trevor Marron (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Beechcraft Bonanza 76.66.192.64 (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a reference exists, and it is not a reference from Beech. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One reference, and that is to a book, which we can not generally verify, other than that, nothing. This could even be a hoax for all the evidence we have, no pictures, no web references, nothing. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the reference unverifiable? The book is held in 62 libraries in the United States alone. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it can not be cross referenced as it is only one reference. Several different references are required for verification, otherwise anyone could simply publish something and that would make it an encyclopedic fact. Trevor Marron (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional ref found [1] and added to the article - which appears to be a reliable source. This at least indicates that it exists.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What isn't clear is whether there is adequate non-trivial coverage in WP:RS to justify a stand-alone article rather than discussing in the main Beech Bonanza article. The ref I added doesn't really have Significant enough coverage to justify a stand-alone article, so I am veering towards a Merge to Beechcraft Bonanza.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A hoax, why don't you research your subjects instead of making unsubstantianted and spurious allegations? The plane is real and the article is correct. Just because you can't find a source doesn't mean it doesn't exoist, or is a hoax, as you like to put it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crwesq@gmail.com (talk • contribs) 11:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to me to find anything, the onus on providing verifiable references is on the writer of the article. And if I had considered it a hoax I would have CSDed it as such. If you have references then add them, but even with all the references you add it will still be a one-off prototype not worthy of it's own article. Not now, not ever. Trevor Marron (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the writer of the article did provide a verifiable reference. And we decide what subjects to have articles about based on notability, which is based on coverage in independent reliable sources, not your subjective judgement of "worthiness". And I've just noticed that I started both of the previous sentences with conjunctions. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the aforementioned Beechcraft Bonanza or to the Beechcraft company itself. not notable on its own.--camr ^nag 00:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all aircraft types are notable (Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft))! just a stub that needs more research. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except this is not a type, it is a Bonanza with a modified nose and twin engines, hence a sub-type. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree, consensus is that all aircraft types are inherently notable as per Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft). The article already meets WP:N. The article needs expanding, but that is no reason to delete it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except when it is a sub-type, which this prototype was. In which case it usually does not merit it's own article. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beech Travel Air Model 95 was a converted 1956 G-35 Bonanza, yet it has it's own article--stop being so negative and filled with false pride Trevor!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crwesq@gmail.com (talk • contribs)

WP:NPA plskthnx Plutonium27 (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's not grounds for keeping an article that something similar already exists. please, Crwesq, read WP:INN--camr ^nag 19:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think this should have been nominated for AfD. I think the real debate here is whether this should be retained as a separate article or merged into Beechcraft Bonanza. - Ahunt (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2009 (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.