Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boeing 797 (3rd nomination)

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 Redirect - per WP:SNOW, and since the article has already been redirected. (non-admin closure) —SW— ^spout 16:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 797

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. Baseball Watcher 00:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boeing; little media coverage, most info on GNews is speculation; archives reveal lots of typos (e.g. "Boeing 797" rather than "Boeing 767"). This is apparently Boeing's next project and I feel that we should only redirect it for the time being. HurricaneFan 25 — 00:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:CRYSTAL (and WP:HAMMER?). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – I love the "mabye" in the first line. Oh, per WP:CRYSTAL. JFHJr (㊟) 06:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I heard it was going to have all the passengers seated on a carpet and fly soundlessly. Crystal Ball. The News link actually turns up a lot of "Boeing 797" citations in the New York Times ... dating between 1968 and 1980. Bet they didn't have a spellchecker. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This period was before there were any realy effective wordprocessors. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as above. It isn't only the NYT that suffers from typos - I bet the reference to widgets in the article should have read winglets. Spellcheckers do not eliminate every error. --AJHingston (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- New aeroplanes take a very long time to produce, but until there are reliable sources on what the plane will look like, and definite plans to proceed with it, this cannot help failing WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boeing Yellowstone Project--This appears to be written by someone who is simply fantasizing what Boeing's next all-new plane might look like. This is definitely an example of a crystal ball, and should be redirected to the yellowstone project page b/c that page is ACTUALLY sourced and gives readers a good idea of Boeing's future product plan. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Boeing Yellowstone Project: Agree with the above. This looks like pure fantasy. Boeing has studied its next new model under the name 737RS (Replacement Study) recently. Nothing all new in the very large airliner class as described in this 797 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced.TSRL (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete, consider speedy deletion~~ Redirect to Boeing 7x7 series. It appears that 797 is simply an expected name for a future Boeing project based solely on previous numbers. Most likely the next Boeing release and the most likely user of the 797 moniker is a 737 replacement which is nothing like the aircraft described in the article. Also, 700 to 800 miles per hour is extremely unlikely given the problems with transonic flight. SDY (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boeing or Boeing Yellowstone Project - Consists entirely of speculation, with no credible assertion of notability. Chris (talk | contribs) 20:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Boeing hasn't announced a 797 yet, and the airplane described in the article reads like WP:MADEUP (Transsonic flying wing? Seriously?) --Carnildo (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2011 (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.