Hi Stingray - well, you seem to have caused quite a stir here :)
I hope you won't be discouraged by this shaky start - you're clearly passionate about helicopters and eager to improve Wikipedia's coverage.
If I can offer a little advice - probably the three things you need to take away from this experience are:
Like I said, I really hope you haven't been too put off. We were all beginners once, and I hope you'll stay with us. Please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions or need any help. Cheers -- Rlandmann ( talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without either resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been
reverted. Thank you.
Erechtheus (
talk)
22:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Stingray - it's good to see you being bold, but please don't go splitting the variants sections out of short articles like you've done with the Mi-1, Mi-2, Mi-4, and Mi-6. This kind of split is saved as a last-resort, "necessary evil" strategy when an article grows unmanageably large. There's no hard and fast rule, but we start considering it with articles above 30 kb or so in length (you can see the length of the article in the "History" tab), and even then we usually hold off as long as we can. The articles you've been splitting up are nowhere near that point. I've reverted these - so no harm done.
You might like to join in at WikiProject Aircraft - the group of editors who look after Wikipedia's aircraft coverage and try to achieve a uniform look and feel to these articles.
Tip: You can "preload" the standard page layout for aircraft articles by typing {{subst:aerostart}} into a blank page and hitting "save". If you do this, be sure to save the page again very quickly with some actual text in it, or one of the New Page Patrollers might mistake it for a test or accident of some sort.
Cheers -- Rlandmann ( talk) 00:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: I'm thankful the new designations in the Mi-6 article weren't removed when you reverted. Stingray, the Helicopter Guy ( talk) 00:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Please be extremely careful when contributing facts to Wikipedia. I've spent some time today cleaning up your recent contibutions, and I've come across some very strange pieces of information - so strange that it looks to me like you've simply made things up.
For example: your contributions on the Mil V-5, V-7, and V-16 each said that these aircraft had a Mi- prefix, and that they were "sometimes known" under the V- prefix. Until very recently, Mil projects had a "V-" prefix while in development (which I assume, but don't know for sure, stood for Vertolet - "Helicopter") and were given a Mi- prefix when in mass production.
As another example, you stated that the Mi-44 was a Russian version of the Eurocopter Ecureuil, and the Mi-54 was a Russian version of the Agusta A109. While it's true that these machines had a resemblance to each other, they were purely Mil projects.
Wikipedia has strict policies that all information entered here must be verifiable and come from reliable sources (click these links to see the policies in full). Entering made-up information, as you appear to have done, is taken very seriously.
Sorry to come across all heavy - I'd really rather not - but you really need to understand that this kind of thing won't be tolerated here. This isn't a web forum - it's an encyclopedia with a reputation to uphold.
Cheers -- Rlandmann ( talk) 06:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
as it was said here before, but that was long ago. Its probably gone now. So, no I don't have a reliable resource any more. I would still like to keep the mention that it was also called Mi-5.
Hi Stingray - could you please tell me what graphics program you used to create this image - Image:Mi-24 with Hawk head.gif? Since it's lineart, if it was created in a vector-based program, it would be better to export it as an svg. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 09:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and its not a print and scan. this was all my work. I swear. It is, though, based on this picture. Stingray, the Helicopter Guy ( talk) 21:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to
Kamov V-60 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thanks.
Chetblong (
talk)
21:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Im recreating the V-60 page. Stingray, the Helicopter Guy ( talk) 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to offer a very big thank-you for this great image and a sincere apology for having doubted the originality of your revised "Hind with Hawk head" picture. This project really needs people like you who can produce high-quality images of obscure aircraft that we're otherwise never going to get copyright-unencumbered pictures of!
I'll also repeat my encouragement to get your head around Inkscape. To understand why I'm so keen to see you head in this direction, take a skim over the article here on Vector graphics to see the difference between what raster-based programs like MS Paint and Adobe Photoshop do and vector-based programs like Inkscape and Adobe Illustrator do (the introductory image pretty much sums it up!). Vector art is almost infinitely scalable - you can change the size of the drawing and have it remain absolutely razor-sharp without any pixellation taking place. You might like to take a look at a "getting started" tutorial here; and there's plenty more tutorials if you Google for them. Yep - there will be quite a learning curve, but I guarantee it will rapidly pay off. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 04:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a reference to support the idea that the Mil Mi-44 was based ont he Ecureuil airframe? -- Rlandmann ( talk) 00:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
“ | However, studies conducted in OKB in 1986-1987, have concluded that the replacement of piston engine M-14V26 for gas turbine TV-O-100 would entail changing the helicopter airframe. | ” |
After that, another paragraph says:
“ | In spring 1987, was prepared draft prospectus-new machine. It was fundamentally perekomponovana and was a lightweight multipurpose vehicle class French AS-350 "Ecureuil". | ” |
It sure sounds like they gave it an Ecureuil airframe to me. -- Stingray, the Helicopter Guy ( talk) 22:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought that by now you had come to understand what is required as a reliable source and that web forums are explicitly not acceptable as sources or external links?
I've added a proposed deletion tag to the article. Since you probably haven't encountered this before, this is how it works: Anyone here (including you) now has five days in which to object to the deletion by removing the tag. If, however, the tag is removed without any reliable sources being added to the article, I will be taking it through the formal deletion process.
As a separate issue, if you continue to disregard the need to only add information that you can back up from reliable sources, you will be blocked for disruptive editing.
I have no doubt that this is a real, genuine project, as displayed at the recent Heli-Russia 2008 show. However, being real is not the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Something must be verifiably real, for the quality control reasons we discussed earlier. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 12:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Stingray - just a quick note about how we name aircraft and articles on Wikipedia: please don't use quotation marks around model names; and in particular, don't use them in article titles.
Congratulations on having successfully adopted {{ Infobox Aircraft}} - your usage of this is now 100% spot-on.
I'm going to suggest that the next part of the standard article layout you try to adopt is to categorise articles you contribute according to WP:AIR's category scheme.
The main category that every article about an aircraft should have is a nation-role-decade category. You can find a full description here, but most people usually find it easier to begin by just copying and/or adapting from the categories that similar aircraft have been placed in. The things to watch out for here are:
1. Nation - you contribute a lot of Russian/Soviet helicopters. Up to the 1980s, we use "Soviet" as the nation element, for the 1990s, we use "Soviet and Russian" and for the 2000s, we use "Russian". (eg: "Soviet military transport aircraft 1980-1989" but "Soviet and Russian military transport aircraft 1990-1999" and "Russian military transport aircraft 2000-2009").
2. Role - this is probably the trickiest for newcomers to sort out, since if you don't follow the wording exactly, the category won't work. probably the ones you'll use the most are:
3. Decade - this is the decade in which the first flight took place, or if the aircraft was never built or never flew, it is the decade in which the project was abandoned.
Finally, helicopters should also go in Category:Helicopters and aircraft from major manufacturers should also go in their manufacturer's category - but you already know this! :)
See how you go - and if you need any help, please feel free to ask. Cheers and keep up the good work! -- Rlandmann ( talk) 23:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
So, if I need help, I just drop a message in your talk page, or here? -- Stingray, the Helicopter Guy ( talk) 02:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, everything we've talked about so far is pretty much spot-on! Infobox, references, categories... All there! :)
The next and final major thing to master is the specification section. This should be mostly self-explanatory. I've added it to the Ka-118 article for you to use as a template. There are some intricacies to this, but for now, you should just be able to copy-and-paste it from that article to any new article you create and just input the new data for that type.
Well done :) -- Rlandmann ( talk) 22:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Stingray - I've just put a question to WP:AIR about the scope of this list. Since you're a major contributor to it, you might want to weigh in with an opinion here. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 22:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Just some feedback on the specifications section you added to the Kamov Ka-137 article - you've pretty much got it! Just remember to always include the English units alongside the metric ones (a tedious job, but an important one), and always specify something as the engine type. If you really can't find out what the engine is, then you can always put in something generic like "piston engine". This will avoid the strange output that the template will create if only an engine power is specified, but not an engine type.
You can find a summary of the most important English/Metric conversions on the project page here, or shoot me an email and I can send you an Excel spreadsheet to handle these.
If doing them manually, the only really tricky one is converting metres into feet and inches; there's an online calculator here that I sometimes use for that. Cheers -- Rlandmann ( talk) 21:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Kamov Ka-35.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs ( talk) 22:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Kamov V-100.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs ( talk) 22:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kamov V-100.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Kelly hi! 23:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The article DSH J-62 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Plane never built, no claims of notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Rogermx (
talk)
17:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
The article Mil Mi-22 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No reliable sources to assert notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
BilCat (
talk)
21:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Mil Mi-60 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No sources cited, doesn't appear to be a notable product, as it didn't get past the mock-up stage, most online sources are forums and user-created.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 09:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Stingray - well, you seem to have caused quite a stir here :)
I hope you won't be discouraged by this shaky start - you're clearly passionate about helicopters and eager to improve Wikipedia's coverage.
If I can offer a little advice - probably the three things you need to take away from this experience are:
Like I said, I really hope you haven't been too put off. We were all beginners once, and I hope you'll stay with us. Please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions or need any help. Cheers -- Rlandmann ( talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without either resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been
reverted. Thank you.
Erechtheus (
talk)
22:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Stingray - it's good to see you being bold, but please don't go splitting the variants sections out of short articles like you've done with the Mi-1, Mi-2, Mi-4, and Mi-6. This kind of split is saved as a last-resort, "necessary evil" strategy when an article grows unmanageably large. There's no hard and fast rule, but we start considering it with articles above 30 kb or so in length (you can see the length of the article in the "History" tab), and even then we usually hold off as long as we can. The articles you've been splitting up are nowhere near that point. I've reverted these - so no harm done.
You might like to join in at WikiProject Aircraft - the group of editors who look after Wikipedia's aircraft coverage and try to achieve a uniform look and feel to these articles.
Tip: You can "preload" the standard page layout for aircraft articles by typing {{subst:aerostart}} into a blank page and hitting "save". If you do this, be sure to save the page again very quickly with some actual text in it, or one of the New Page Patrollers might mistake it for a test or accident of some sort.
Cheers -- Rlandmann ( talk) 00:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: I'm thankful the new designations in the Mi-6 article weren't removed when you reverted. Stingray, the Helicopter Guy ( talk) 00:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Please be extremely careful when contributing facts to Wikipedia. I've spent some time today cleaning up your recent contibutions, and I've come across some very strange pieces of information - so strange that it looks to me like you've simply made things up.
For example: your contributions on the Mil V-5, V-7, and V-16 each said that these aircraft had a Mi- prefix, and that they were "sometimes known" under the V- prefix. Until very recently, Mil projects had a "V-" prefix while in development (which I assume, but don't know for sure, stood for Vertolet - "Helicopter") and were given a Mi- prefix when in mass production.
As another example, you stated that the Mi-44 was a Russian version of the Eurocopter Ecureuil, and the Mi-54 was a Russian version of the Agusta A109. While it's true that these machines had a resemblance to each other, they were purely Mil projects.
Wikipedia has strict policies that all information entered here must be verifiable and come from reliable sources (click these links to see the policies in full). Entering made-up information, as you appear to have done, is taken very seriously.
Sorry to come across all heavy - I'd really rather not - but you really need to understand that this kind of thing won't be tolerated here. This isn't a web forum - it's an encyclopedia with a reputation to uphold.
Cheers -- Rlandmann ( talk) 06:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
as it was said here before, but that was long ago. Its probably gone now. So, no I don't have a reliable resource any more. I would still like to keep the mention that it was also called Mi-5.
Hi Stingray - could you please tell me what graphics program you used to create this image - Image:Mi-24 with Hawk head.gif? Since it's lineart, if it was created in a vector-based program, it would be better to export it as an svg. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 09:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and its not a print and scan. this was all my work. I swear. It is, though, based on this picture. Stingray, the Helicopter Guy ( talk) 21:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to
Kamov V-60 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thanks.
Chetblong (
talk)
21:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Im recreating the V-60 page. Stingray, the Helicopter Guy ( talk) 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to offer a very big thank-you for this great image and a sincere apology for having doubted the originality of your revised "Hind with Hawk head" picture. This project really needs people like you who can produce high-quality images of obscure aircraft that we're otherwise never going to get copyright-unencumbered pictures of!
I'll also repeat my encouragement to get your head around Inkscape. To understand why I'm so keen to see you head in this direction, take a skim over the article here on Vector graphics to see the difference between what raster-based programs like MS Paint and Adobe Photoshop do and vector-based programs like Inkscape and Adobe Illustrator do (the introductory image pretty much sums it up!). Vector art is almost infinitely scalable - you can change the size of the drawing and have it remain absolutely razor-sharp without any pixellation taking place. You might like to take a look at a "getting started" tutorial here; and there's plenty more tutorials if you Google for them. Yep - there will be quite a learning curve, but I guarantee it will rapidly pay off. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 04:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a reference to support the idea that the Mil Mi-44 was based ont he Ecureuil airframe? -- Rlandmann ( talk) 00:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
“ | However, studies conducted in OKB in 1986-1987, have concluded that the replacement of piston engine M-14V26 for gas turbine TV-O-100 would entail changing the helicopter airframe. | ” |
After that, another paragraph says:
“ | In spring 1987, was prepared draft prospectus-new machine. It was fundamentally perekomponovana and was a lightweight multipurpose vehicle class French AS-350 "Ecureuil". | ” |
It sure sounds like they gave it an Ecureuil airframe to me. -- Stingray, the Helicopter Guy ( talk) 22:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought that by now you had come to understand what is required as a reliable source and that web forums are explicitly not acceptable as sources or external links?
I've added a proposed deletion tag to the article. Since you probably haven't encountered this before, this is how it works: Anyone here (including you) now has five days in which to object to the deletion by removing the tag. If, however, the tag is removed without any reliable sources being added to the article, I will be taking it through the formal deletion process.
As a separate issue, if you continue to disregard the need to only add information that you can back up from reliable sources, you will be blocked for disruptive editing.
I have no doubt that this is a real, genuine project, as displayed at the recent Heli-Russia 2008 show. However, being real is not the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Something must be verifiably real, for the quality control reasons we discussed earlier. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 12:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Stingray - just a quick note about how we name aircraft and articles on Wikipedia: please don't use quotation marks around model names; and in particular, don't use them in article titles.
Congratulations on having successfully adopted {{ Infobox Aircraft}} - your usage of this is now 100% spot-on.
I'm going to suggest that the next part of the standard article layout you try to adopt is to categorise articles you contribute according to WP:AIR's category scheme.
The main category that every article about an aircraft should have is a nation-role-decade category. You can find a full description here, but most people usually find it easier to begin by just copying and/or adapting from the categories that similar aircraft have been placed in. The things to watch out for here are:
1. Nation - you contribute a lot of Russian/Soviet helicopters. Up to the 1980s, we use "Soviet" as the nation element, for the 1990s, we use "Soviet and Russian" and for the 2000s, we use "Russian". (eg: "Soviet military transport aircraft 1980-1989" but "Soviet and Russian military transport aircraft 1990-1999" and "Russian military transport aircraft 2000-2009").
2. Role - this is probably the trickiest for newcomers to sort out, since if you don't follow the wording exactly, the category won't work. probably the ones you'll use the most are:
3. Decade - this is the decade in which the first flight took place, or if the aircraft was never built or never flew, it is the decade in which the project was abandoned.
Finally, helicopters should also go in Category:Helicopters and aircraft from major manufacturers should also go in their manufacturer's category - but you already know this! :)
See how you go - and if you need any help, please feel free to ask. Cheers and keep up the good work! -- Rlandmann ( talk) 23:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
So, if I need help, I just drop a message in your talk page, or here? -- Stingray, the Helicopter Guy ( talk) 02:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, everything we've talked about so far is pretty much spot-on! Infobox, references, categories... All there! :)
The next and final major thing to master is the specification section. This should be mostly self-explanatory. I've added it to the Ka-118 article for you to use as a template. There are some intricacies to this, but for now, you should just be able to copy-and-paste it from that article to any new article you create and just input the new data for that type.
Well done :) -- Rlandmann ( talk) 22:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Stingray - I've just put a question to WP:AIR about the scope of this list. Since you're a major contributor to it, you might want to weigh in with an opinion here. -- Rlandmann ( talk) 22:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Just some feedback on the specifications section you added to the Kamov Ka-137 article - you've pretty much got it! Just remember to always include the English units alongside the metric ones (a tedious job, but an important one), and always specify something as the engine type. If you really can't find out what the engine is, then you can always put in something generic like "piston engine". This will avoid the strange output that the template will create if only an engine power is specified, but not an engine type.
You can find a summary of the most important English/Metric conversions on the project page here, or shoot me an email and I can send you an Excel spreadsheet to handle these.
If doing them manually, the only really tricky one is converting metres into feet and inches; there's an online calculator here that I sometimes use for that. Cheers -- Rlandmann ( talk) 21:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Kamov Ka-35.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs ( talk) 22:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Kamov V-100.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs ( talk) 22:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kamov V-100.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Kelly hi! 23:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The article DSH J-62 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Plane never built, no claims of notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Rogermx (
talk)
17:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
The article Mil Mi-22 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No reliable sources to assert notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
BilCat (
talk)
21:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Mil Mi-60 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No sources cited, doesn't appear to be a notable product, as it didn't get past the mock-up stage, most online sources are forums and user-created.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 09:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)