Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-APSA


 * 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. For an article to be kept, there must be sufficient verifiable sources to indicate the notability of the subject. These have not been found for this specific aircraft. This is unfortunate, as the article is otherwise well written and informative. Tyrenius (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

G-APSA
NOTE closing admin see Suspected sock puppets/Thedc6 for sock/vote stacking issues on this case. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 17:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete NN aircraft Mayalld (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - nn I can't see anything notable about that particular aircraft. Nothing cited in the article.  Sting_au   Talk  11:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Individual aircraft are not generally notable enough for their own article. No references in the article and I have not found anything that suggests this aircraft is notable. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - References have been helpfully added to the article by the author, and the article generally presents it case for been kept better than it did. There are many DC-6s still flying; though the fact that this aircraft was one of the last to be in active commercial service, as the references suggest, has given me the impression it has some notability. The article still needs work though, wording needs to be more encyclopedic, and original research needs removing. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and re-direct to Douglas DC-6 - In fact, merge and re-direct the article, seems to have some notability and not enough for its own entry. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Plenty of references here and some interesting history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedc6 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)  — Thedc6 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - article has merit: good references, historical interest and aircraft obviously linked to significant world events. Meets inclusion criteria better than e.g. MSC Armonia article debated in transportation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latto shubtill (talk • contribs) 07:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)  — Latto shubtill (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Closing administrator, please note the discussion at Suspected sock puppets/Thedc6. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I gain the impression that this aircraft is being maintained and run as a heritage specimen of its type. Unless there are dozens of DC-3 aircraft to which this applies, I think that makes it notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The aircraft is a DC-6, not a DC-3. According to the article Douglas DC-6 There are around a hundred such aircraft still in flying condition. As such, it isn't notable. Mayalld (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The aircraft is indeed a DC-6, which is a very rare breed now. G-ASPA is in fact the only DC-6A operational outside the Americas and the only one operated commercially in Europe. A quick look at the Oldprops reference in the G-APSA article reveals that there are just a dozen or so now in flying condition anywhere in teh world. The Douglas DC-6 article needs updating in this respect. User:thedc6  —Preceding comment was added at 16:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  Transwiki and delete - no more notable than thousands upon thousands of other rare aircraft of various types. Should maybe get a mention in the Douglas DC-6 article, but the detailed history of the airframe belongs at still-under-development Airframes, not here. Great article, by the way, just not about an encyclopedic topic. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, it's so good, I've already transwikied] it, regardless of what happens to the article here. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be an advertising vehicle for the current owners. It is already mentioned (including external link) in the DC6 page. MilborneOne (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Aircraft has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 18:14, 25 December 2007 (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.