Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aluminum Overcast


 * 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. JForget 23:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Aluminum Overcast

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not a aircraft of particular note (referring to Notability_(aircraft)) Aircraft use by owning organization may be notable but not airframe as such GraemeLeggett (talk)
 * On a causal check, I have found a number of reference sources online and at least one magazine article in a recent Air Classics issue. This meets the standard of "Aluminum Overcast" being notable. However, the main problem in the article is the scarcity of information in the article. Hold off one week and I will "spruce it up" in my own inimitable style. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC).
 * You have a fair history on the aircraft now but the lead sentence still doesn't tell me why it is notable (enough for a wikipedia article). GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on some suggestions, I have revised the lede to establish the aircraft's notability. Take a look at the new version. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep page, it is notable because it is one of the few surviving aircraft of its type and it is shown and seen by many. A number of references have been added today. Snowman (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP page, it is notable because of the hundreds of flying hours every year showing and giving a small glimpse of how these venerable aircraft are flown and how they are maintained, compared to how they were used in war. This is one of approximately 14 flying Fortresses... they are all notable and by rights should have their own page. Without these flying warbirds and the other flying warbirds, 25's, 24's, 29, T-6s, P-51s etc... these aircraft are teaching today's society of what past wars were like flying and surviving in the air and war is not fun. I have hours of flight time on 17's and a 25, and having a WWII B-17 veteran saying, "thank you for keeping this bird (Alum. Overcast) in the air...", you know you are a part of the great good! I volunteer hundreds of hours to these warbirds every year, and they are all "notable" and no different than Memphis Belle or Fifi or the Wright Flyer. LanceBarber (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep' 14 airworthy aircraft out of 12,751 built makes this notable enough to have an article. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd just like to clarify: I am not saying that aircraft is not recorded, but not as an individual article rather than (as an example) as part of the List of B-17 survivors article. As a comparison there are about 17 Lancasters of 7,000 built, only two fly but there is a single individual article on the RAAF memorial G for George - the rest are covered adequately in the main article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That reminds me that "VR-A", the "Mynarski Lanc" (the Andrew Mynarski VC Memorial Lancaster) is certainly worthy of an article of its own. Hoping I'm not starting a new kettle of worms? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment. Notability for individual "vehicles" on Wikipedia is somewhat haphazard. Almost every ship is deemed notable enough to have an article. Almost no individual road vehicles are deemed notable enough. I'd say that aircraft and railway locomotives are on a par, with some being deemed notable enough and others not notable enough. IMHO, both flying Lancs should have their own articles. Just a case of no-one writing the article on them yet. Maybe this needs further discussion elsewhere. BTW, Sally B has an article, and is just as noteworthy as Aluminum Overcast. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I remain convinced that this individual aircraft should have its own wiki article, being one of the few surviving examples of an incredibly famous bomber. Snowman (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep "...Aluminum Overcast has become one of the most recognizable examples of the type..." – several online reference sources and a magazine article – and how many of these, or in fact any other WWII type aircraft still flying, allow the public the chance to experience a flight in them?! Seems notable enough to me. --Red Su ns et    19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I would suggest that the article's facts and figures need looking at however:– "logging over one million flight hours by 2009". Really? That's more than 114 years! --Red Su ns et    19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right you are, somehow one million miles got transposed to one million flight hours, might as well said, a gazillion hours... LOL FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep doesnt appear to meet the guidelines but we do have articles on the more well know airshow and display aircraft like Sally B and Vulcan XH558. Just need to change or modify the guideline to include these aircraft without including all the older than fifty aircraft that appear in flying displays or give pleasure flights. MilborneOne (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as one of a few surviving aircraft of its type and due to its recognizability. I think the notability guideline referenced at Notability_(aircraft) is overly restrictive in this case.  If nothing else, WP:IAR should take care of this.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:36, 6 August 2009 (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.