Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haynes Aero Skyblazer (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Haynes Aero Skyblazer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Project which never got off the ground. Sourcing is paltry and includes what are basically non-entries, previous close was erroneous--article has not been salvaged. Abductive (reasoning) 05:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is not temporary, and something need not exist in order to be notable. There are multiple reliable sources listed in the article, and a quick Google check shows several more that can be added. The article totally needs a good scrub-and-polish, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge a short summary to Roadable aircraft, of which it is a species. -- While I agree that notability is not temporary, this has the look of a WP:CRYSTAL project that never got anywhere, perhaps becuase the whole thing was impracticable.  I note that there are no references more recent that 2006 and 2007.  If anything had been achieved, I would have expected there to be something more.  I guess that someone provided some funding for a feasibility study.  When the funding ran out, that was the end of the matter.  My personal test on WP:CRYSTAL infrastucture projects is that a subject should not have more than an article on the project generally until it is legally authorised and funded, or at least has a very goood prospect of that.  As a (probably) failed project, I would suggest that a brief summary be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2013 (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.