Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Red B-17


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Big Red B-17

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

There is no evidence that this B-17 Flying Fortress bomber is more notable than most of the other 12,730 B-17s which were produced. A Google search of B-17 Big Red doesn't produce any reliable sources - all that's there is a couple of sources where the aircraft's paint scheme is used as an example of how B-17s were normally painted. This is the only book reference, and it's just the caption to a colour plate in the book where aircraft was selected as one of several representative examples of what B-17s looked like. Please note that this is a contested prod, with the article's creator removing the prod notice with an edit summary of 'It is Notable because it compleated 35 missions successfully, not many did that'. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Il s'appelait Big Red--: mars 1944-mars 1994 By Bertrand Illegems, Louis Gouraud Published by Office municipal des activités culturelles, 1994 CrayZatseA (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sounds more a like a page meant to memorilze the plane it is a artilces to inform on the plane. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This plane is notable for the fact that it was the lead bomber in the very first mission of the 388th. This is not a memorial but an artilces to inform. Also please note this referance that states this plane is notable http://www.388bg.org/Aircraft.html CrayZatseA (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The offline reference doesn't count, the notability we consider here is WP:NOTABILITY, and if those guidelines are not met an article does not stay. Leading the first bombing mission on the 338th is no different than leading the first bombing mission in Afghanistan after 9/11 or into Iraq in '91 or so forth. We define notability as something that made the planes service outstanding - dropping the atomic bomb, for instance, was notable. Unless you could pull something equally as notable out for this bomber than its claim to notability fails our notability standard. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "offline reference doesn't count" - a novel approach indeed. But the article, I'm afraid, has no chances with or without them. NVO (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you see this? http://www.388bg.org/Aircraft.html this clearly states this plane's notablity.CrayZatseA (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a website self-published by the '388th BG Association Historian' (according to: ) and only briefly mentions the plane. Sources which cover the aircraft in depth and are published by a reliable source which is independent of the unit which operated the aircraft are needed. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Further references will be forth comming or can this be merged with 388th Fighter Wing? CrayZatseA (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This can be merged. For that happen the afd must first be closed, and consensus must be to merge. As a matter of procedure the afd can not be closed for a week, but once it is the person closing it may elect to merge it of the fact consensus is to do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a independent referance to give credit to this articles notablity.
 * Delete: Gotta admit, I'm having trouble seeing what was notable about this particular plane. Ryan 4314   (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete From the very reference used to show that this plane was special "Big Red 42-30207 : The Big Red was like many of the B17s - it flew its missions until it was shot down over France. " DGG (talk) 00:45, 20 June 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.