Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado E.500


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Arado E.500

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cannot see any reason why this 'paper plane' should be notable. Most aircraft manufacturers have as many unbuilt designs as ones that actually flew. TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Any paper project should pass the usual WP:GNG guidelines. The E 500 is certainly splashed around the enthusiast world, but I don't see that a few fan websites, scraped-together self-published books and plastic kits make it notable. The question must be, is it described in the reliable historical works on Arado? Sorry I don't know the answer to that, can anybody enlighten? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One might have to resort to books because the internet did not become into common use until more than 50 years later. Anyone have any books? Vanguard10 (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Given that its a paper (ok, wooden mockup) machine, I don't see that there is likely to be much more about the thing than the present article content; maybe the best solution is to merge to the article on Arado. Like most manufacturer articles there is a long list of projects, & I think a brief description for each type would be of interest.TheLongTone (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not be so sure. A great deal of material on WWII (and subsequent) paper projects has been published since various government secret document stashes have been made public. And memoirs of surviving staff are also finding a ready market. For example Category:Blohm & Voss aircraft lists almost as many notable paper "P" projects as it does types which were actually built. That it reached mock-up stage in government-controlled Nazi Germany suggests that there is a history to be unearthed. Whether it has been already is what I do not know. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * for one.--Petebutt (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep. Many unbuilt military projects are notable - particularly when the design is "odd" or "groundbreaking" (which this one was - though a few of these turret-fighters (see Category:Turret fighters) - did reach production). Even unrealized projects may have represented a rather large R&D expenditure (in fact - we have quite a bit of contemporary "in development projects" on Wikipedia now. In this case - we have coverage - and this meets GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per coverage coted by Icewhiz above. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep nomination does not seem to be based on policy, but rather seems to be based on the most common WP:arguments to avoid -- namely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide a policy based comment on the article rather than resorting to attacking the nominator?2605:8D80:6A9:740:EF65:8B14:1FAC:9B5A (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2018 (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.