Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Type 172


 * 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 speedy keep per the snowball clause (non-admin closure)  OxonAlex    - talk  18:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Bristol Type 172

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. The sources added consist of the very shortest of mentions. In a before search I found nothing that could be described as in-depth coverage. This article is destined to be a WP:PERMASTUB Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep A significant project from one of the UK's leading aviation companies. I can see other possible sources, such as this, this and this. Mccapra (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep  Obviously notable, it's just an issue of writing an article on it. Despite the rather peculiar state of the first version. Tony Buttler is going to be the only really substantial, reliable and detailed, source on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I have done a big expansion to take it out of stub area, as other have said it was a significant project in its time. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, a significant project from a well-established aircraft manufacturer. The article now easily makes WP:GNG with the recent expansion, so the AfD nomination may now be withdrawn. - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2019 (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) 17:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep because WP:SNOW. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep (timidly) because seems relevant to the development of aircraft design at large. Could do with improvement, though, I already did my little best. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2019 (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.