Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avery JA-5 Walrus


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Avery JA-5 Walrus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This self-made individual airplane clearly fails WP:GNG and I couldn't find any reliable sources, prod removed as "clearly flew and the article has references so is notable" which isn't a convincing rationale Delete Secret account 23:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, the topic is not notable and the content largely unverifiable. It took me less than a minute to find a factual error; while I could fix that, removing everything else that cannot be verified would effectively amount to deletion anyway. Huon (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 03:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 03:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 03:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * delete I can find no evidence that anyone cared about this one-off homebuilt. Mangoe (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOBODYCARES - The Bushranger One ping only 04:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Previous deletion discussions indicate that aircraft that existed and have flown pass the requirement for general notability. A reference to the American Federal Aviation Authority source shows it existed and had flown, another reference to a magazine also backs up the fact that it existed. Sure the article could do with more work and references but that is not a reason to delete it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * FAA registration is not sufficient proof of notability, and neither is proof of its existence. Notability means that sufficient people cared, and that's what we don't have here. Mangoe (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep - This article describes the history of a prototype canard aircraft that was flight tested and lists actual flight test data. This is a part of history. Performance data can be used by future aircraft designers. Deleting it would remove a valuable data point for future engineers 20:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.66.11 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - that is all well and good, the problem is that the history of this aircraft doesn't seem to have been documented anywhere, including not in Janes All The World's Aircraft between 2002-10, which I checked. That means we have nothing to base an article on and even if the article is kept all the unsourced text will have to be removed, which will only leave a few lines. If you know where the history of the aircraft is published then the article can be preserved. - Ahunt (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. "Nobody cares" is one of the worst possible arguments for deletion. However, while it is true that the WP:CONSENSUS for aircraft types is that flying = notability, the article still must be verifiable through reliable sources - which this is not. All sources are promotional, registration databases, or blogs/self-published. If there can be one third-party reliable source found, this passes the "Keep" bar. But unless that happens - it simply can't. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see "nobody cared" as an "argument to avoid". And if we cannot find evidence that nobody cared enough to produce more than routine and requisite documentation (in this case the FAA registration), well, that is what notability is all about. Mangoe (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I have to agree with the Bushranger's comments above. This is an interesting aircraft that definitely existed and flew. If we had one solid reference upon which to base an article then this should be kept, but I have been looking everywhere and not finding anything. I even made a special trip to my central library to read through the 2002-10 editions of Janes and drew a blank. As I noted above, even if it is kept it will have to be stubbed to the supportable text, which isn't much. In very practical terms, when an aircraft completely fails to be mentioned in a decade's worth of Janes All The World's Aircraft, it is pretty hard to write a credible article about it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2014 (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.