Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown-Young BY-1

 ''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. Samf4u (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Brown-Young BY-1
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  BY-1 Stats )

This page has sourcing and relevancy issues. The rocket science source has only a quick mention of the plane, and the Skyways reference seems to be little more than a list of technical specifications. WP:NRV and WP:GNG. Seems pretty much like an irrelevant plane that is not notable in any particular way. Bluedude588 (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Bluedude588 (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as normally aircraft that have flown are deemed by precedent to be of note, the fact that it is a crap article just means we need to improve it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to note for transparency, I have asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft if anybody has anything we can use to improve the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article needs improvement, but it is likely that contemporary paper sources exist that can be used to expand it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per both the above. See WikiProject Aviation/Notability and the more detailed WP:NAIR for further clarification. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep it has been established numerous times (at AfDs and elsewhere) that all aircraft types are notable, even those that did not fly (this one did, more than once). Relevancy does not appear to have a Wikipedia guideline yet, unless I missed it (been here a long time). A very important point to bear in mind with older subjects like this aircraft is that sources were not as instant and easy to find as they are today online, books and magazines including these types have been written and lost. We have photos (praise be), further proof that it existed (but not admissible as evidence by Wikipedia yet). Do we have people alive today willing to put the effort in to record these things for posterity? Yes, Wikipedia editors, doing it for free! Come on. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  20:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep can't see any valid reason for deletion. We should have an article on Richard E. Young too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 6 December 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.