Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACAZ T.2


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — Theopolisme ( talk )  00:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

ACAZ T.2

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable plane. Only one was ever made and there have been no reliable sources added to it since it was tagged as needing some in 2009. Technical 13 (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Technical 13 (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 21.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  21:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per long-standing WP:CONSENSUS and results at AfD, all individual make-and-model aircraft types are notable, much as all make-and-model vehicle types are. In addition, sources have been added clearly demonstrating that this "unremarkable" type passes WP:GNG comfortably. Note that sources need only exist, not be in the article, and WP:NOEFFORT is a argument to avoid. Also "only one was ever made" is not a valid argument; only one Spruce Goose was ever made, for instance. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Add some more reliable sources and information and I'll withdraw my nomination. Your Spruce Goose example is well documented with 24+ referenced resources, yet the only reference I could find for this with a Google search is our own article and it doesn't get much more circular than that. Technical 13 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's currently four reliable sources in the article. Sources are not required to be online. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep notable per consensus just because it is marked for attention and needs more work is not a reason to delete. MilborneOne (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - There now appears to be enough references to demonstrate notability. It appears that it could be significantly expanded by someone with access to the full version of the edition of Jane's All The World's Aircraft that is currently linked as a snippet view. There should also be more coverage in other off line sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:GNG has been met. That only one aircraft was built does not affect the notability of the type. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.