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.
Notability concerns. This plane was apparently never mass-produced, and it's unclear from the article whether the one model ever flew. Web search just finds wiki-mirrors. Possibly could be merged to
Militi M.B.2 Leonardo, which also has notability issues but is at least mentioned in a few printed works.
Bruno Militi is a redlink and I don't see coverage for a biographical article.
User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki,
π,
ν)
16:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Doesn't meet general notability standards, but does indeed seem to meet NAIR. Fails
WP:GNG. Could only find a single mention in a list of all aircraft ever made. --
Bob drobbs (
talk)
19:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
We only put one set of aircraft specifications in an article. A merge would force us to delete one set and focus on the other aircraft. It is not clear to me that that would be appropriate here. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
16:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep (as originator) clearly flew and information was from a reliable source (Janes). Being mass-produced has never been a criteria for aircraft articles.
MilborneOne (
talk)
16:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - sourced to a highly reliable source so meets notability requirements. Wikipedia covers more than just mass-production aircraft. -
Ahunt (
talk)
16:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep, Jane's is about as reliable as any source gets. The aircraft flew. If Wikipedia was limited to aircraft that saw mass-production many of the most interestion machines would not merit an entry.
TheLongTone (
talk)
16:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Strong keep per the above three comments.
WP:NAIR has long held that if a recognisable type flew then it is notable; these "I didn't realise that" nominations do pop up from time to time. This plane is clearly stated as having flown, as cited from a highly respected
reliable source; quite why the OP thinks otherwise is a mystery to me. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
16:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
See
WP:BURDEN. If you can find RS that says they are, then yes they are. However, until then they are not. I wonder whether you may be confusing the linguistic issue of definition with the encyclopedic issue of notability. See also the
associated NAIR talk page discussion. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
09:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [Updated 13:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)]reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that
WP:NAIR is an essay; editors should discuss whether this article meets policy- and guideline-level inclusion standards. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment. We have five Keep votes, two merge and only the OP's rationale for deletion. While
WP:NAIR is indeed a mere essay, it has been endorsed by the
Aircraft Wikiproject, used to assess thousands of aircraft articles for over a decade, and stood the test of many challenges such as this one. Do we really need to go over all the old discussions which shaped NAIR in the first place? See for example
its talk page. And if we do, then it should be thrashed out on said talk page before coming here, otherwise some Project member will re-implement it for the Militi M.B.1 and y'all will be going round in circles, joy unbounded. Anybody re-assessing the present discussion, please be realistic about this. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
13:25, 20 November 2021 (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.
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.
Notability concerns. This plane was apparently never mass-produced, and it's unclear from the article whether the one model ever flew. Web search just finds wiki-mirrors. Possibly could be merged to
Militi M.B.2 Leonardo, which also has notability issues but is at least mentioned in a few printed works.
Bruno Militi is a redlink and I don't see coverage for a biographical article.
User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki,
π,
ν)
16:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Doesn't meet general notability standards, but does indeed seem to meet NAIR. Fails
WP:GNG. Could only find a single mention in a list of all aircraft ever made. --
Bob drobbs (
talk)
19:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
We only put one set of aircraft specifications in an article. A merge would force us to delete one set and focus on the other aircraft. It is not clear to me that that would be appropriate here. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
16:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep (as originator) clearly flew and information was from a reliable source (Janes). Being mass-produced has never been a criteria for aircraft articles.
MilborneOne (
talk)
16:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - sourced to a highly reliable source so meets notability requirements. Wikipedia covers more than just mass-production aircraft. -
Ahunt (
talk)
16:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep, Jane's is about as reliable as any source gets. The aircraft flew. If Wikipedia was limited to aircraft that saw mass-production many of the most interestion machines would not merit an entry.
TheLongTone (
talk)
16:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Strong keep per the above three comments.
WP:NAIR has long held that if a recognisable type flew then it is notable; these "I didn't realise that" nominations do pop up from time to time. This plane is clearly stated as having flown, as cited from a highly respected
reliable source; quite why the OP thinks otherwise is a mystery to me. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
16:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
See
WP:BURDEN. If you can find RS that says they are, then yes they are. However, until then they are not. I wonder whether you may be confusing the linguistic issue of definition with the encyclopedic issue of notability. See also the
associated NAIR talk page discussion. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
09:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [Updated 13:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)]reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that
WP:NAIR is an essay; editors should discuss whether this article meets policy- and guideline-level inclusion standards. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment. We have five Keep votes, two merge and only the OP's rationale for deletion. While
WP:NAIR is indeed a mere essay, it has been endorsed by the
Aircraft Wikiproject, used to assess thousands of aircraft articles for over a decade, and stood the test of many challenges such as this one. Do we really need to go over all the old discussions which shaped NAIR in the first place? See for example
its talk page. And if we do, then it should be thrashed out on said talk page before coming here, otherwise some Project member will re-implement it for the Militi M.B.1 and y'all will be going round in circles, joy unbounded. Anybody re-assessing the present discussion, please be realistic about this. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
13:25, 20 November 2021 (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.