Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squirrel Model Airplane

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel Model Airplane

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This model airplane does not appear notable. Googling with the term squirrel "model airplane" on Google Books, News, and News archives retrieves only what appear to be false positives. (I may be wrong on this one. There were so many hits, especially on Google Books, that I skimmed through the results rather than scrutinizing each one as I usually do. If I've missed something, just let me know and I'll happily consider withdrawing. However, considering the nature of the topic, I doubt if any reliable sources might exist.) CtP (t • c) 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any books would mention it. Lots of magazines though. --siteware
- Could you give some specific examples? If there are magazines that give significant coverage of the model airplane, then I'll just go ahead and withdraw. CtP (t • c) 17:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is a list of various radio and magazine mentions (there are a few other things in that list) http://www.rubber-power.com/category/media --siteware
    Is that what you mean? --siteware — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siteware (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. Xe means proper citations of actual articles, more like this:
      - Cooper, Chris (2010-03-26). "Flying high". Centretown News.
      - Kuhl, Bill (2009). "Squirrel Model Airplane". ScienceGuy.
      - Janelle, Robert (2009-10-20). "Flight of the Squirrels". Techvibes.
    - Go find and cite things like, or indeed better than, those. Uncle G (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If kept this article should be renamed to Squirrel (model aircraft). But please don't move it while the AfD's in progress, it causes admin headaches at closing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-good idea it could be Squirrel (model aircraft). It's more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siteware (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make it more like this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triggertrap

And show the different variations. I'll list media mentions and write-ups too.

I've got lots to figure out here but I'm working on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siteware (talk • contribs) 00:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Flying high" article mentioned above by Uncle G notes coverage of the Squirrel in various aviation magazines. It's starting to look more notable, although we'll need to judge first-hand how substantial the coverage is. CtP (t • c) 00:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just performed a Google search using the same criteria as a previous entry. The Squirrel rubber band powered plane came up as entry 2 - 10 on the first page. This design and it's manufacturing process look like an interesting project and small business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.30.54 (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as for any significant coverage? That's what would really contribute to notability. CtP (t • c) 14:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - What the!!!!!!Petebutt (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as a stand alone article, maybe a small paragraph in Rubber powered aircraft models, or an entry in List of rubber powered aircraft models. I was just stunned that anybody could think that a model aircraft design could be notable, let alone have sources other than reviews in modelling magazines. Don't get me wrong, I am an RC modeller myself, but do not consider individual model designs to be notable.Petebutt (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's a few - a very few - but this certainly isn't one of them! (IMHO of course) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What we have here is a failure of notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is one WP:RS cited in the article. I could not find another. --Kvng (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2012 (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.