Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hangar 9 Sundowner


 * 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. Wizardman 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hangar 9 Sundowner

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

The article does not appear to be written with a neutral point of view. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Advertising/ spam/ nonsense. Was tagged for speedy, but tag was removed by author.  TN ‑ X - Man  18:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Was already nominated for WP:CSD, removed by page author. That's not good. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Delete  - Out and Out Spam. By the way I will retag - author can not remove - must be either administrator or thrid party editor. ShoesssS Talk 19:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - See below conversation. ShoesssS Talk 00:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as nom, and per CSD G11. - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 19:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've removed the speedy and prod tags from the article to let this afd run it's course.  It is not eligible for speedy, I just declined it.  It is not eligible for prod, I just removed it.  There are 72000+ google hits for this, I didn't look through them, I don't know the quality.  But a new article with a speedy/prod/and AFD template looked ridiculous.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Keeper76 - maybe we should just work on improving the article; it seems notable if that's the case. - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 22:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – I am sorry to disagree – but I only got 51 hits on Google as shown here with a majority of them being blogs and Wikipedia web sites.  In addition, on Google News there were no hits at all, as shown here .  Let us not confuse Sundowning with this spammy piece.  Thanks.  ShoesssS Talk 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral because while I happen to be of the opinion that some R/C models are notable, not all of them are. Not sure if this qualifies as notable.  A fellow flying club member has one of these models.  Believe me, this plane is to die for.  It's ridiculously fast, 100% aerobatic and has one of the most gorgeous color schemes I've ever seen.  A good article might be possible about this plane, but I agree this current version is a bit spammy at present which I'll chalk up to the fact that it was written by a new user.  I'll see what I can do with it.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Working on it now. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – I do appreciate the effort you have put into this piece, and anyone with time here at Afd knows I am all for keeping articles. However, concerning this piece, where is the Notability?  Even in a niche interest group, I see little to no coverage.  If you can provide some independent – verifiable – creditable – 3rd party sources, and more than just company press releases, I am more than happy to change my opinion.  Either way this particular Afd goes, I know where to look for a passionate advocate. ShoesssS Talk 23:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've done about all I can on it.  Unfortunately, radio controlled aircraft are a definite niche item.  They are notable within hobbyist's circles, maybe not so much outside.  I just found that a model I'd written about some time ago no longer has that article.  Yet another model I'd written about was deleted on an AfD soon after I started back in to editng here.  I was absolutely sure of its notability, but no one seemed to agree.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – How about a Merge/Redirect to the company’s page Hangar 9 or even the parent company’s pageHorizon Hobby.   I believe the piece would fit nicely into either of those pieces.  However, the concern I have, is that both companies articles may be subject to Afd in that Notability   has not been established with either piece.  ShoesssS Talk 00:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of a merge to the Hangar 9 article; it's a little thin and borderline spammy as it is. Sub-articles on individual Hangar 9 models would be a real asset there.  The Horizon Hobby article is real thin as well.  They are, I believe the second-largest hobby distributor in the US behind Hobbico. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete This reads like marketing collateral - it doesn't belong here. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Just delete it! Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 03:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. After seeing the work done here, I think a merge is the best course to the manufacturer's article, which I agree needs work.  The product reviews are good independent sources and show at least a niche level of notability, enough to not outright delete this information, but I agree with Shoessss that it isn't enough for a standalone article.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  14:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm good with that. I do articles on individual models on the radio control wiki and the independent Eflightwiki.com; I've become convinced that articles on individual models over here aren't terribly helpful.  Kind of like the occasional articles on cell phones which tend to pop up every so often.  Unless it's the iPhone, there isn't a lot to say about an individual phone.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to delete. Article was created by the sock of a now-blocked user.  I can easily add this info to the main article about the company at a future date.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Was the sock acting disruptively (voting as more than one vote in discussions, etc?) I don't see the point of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  You've done a lot of work on that article yourself, PMDrive. Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right (blush). I was miffed that I was snowed by a sockpuppet and I kind of lashed out.  Let's keep it at merge if not an outright keep.  It's just that there isn't anything really notable about the model other than its potential top speed and the fact it's factory-configured for gasoline, glow or electric.  The only other really notable issue is the grand prix rules which are unique to the model as I pointed out in the external links section.  That's definitely cool.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2008 (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.