Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N396JS


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

N396JS

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Do we really need an article for every single helicopter ever built? I see nothing notable or remarkable about this one. My preference is to delete. Philippe 21:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete if an individual aircraft has participated in a significant event then it is notable. This one, however, has done nothing signifcant beyond the normal job it and all others like it have been designed to do.  This is not notable and should be deleted. StudierMalMarburg 22:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article fails to assert notability per WP:NOTE. No third-party reliable sources are discussing this aircraft specifically. I'd also suggest adding County Rescue Services aircraft N202LF and N135CR to the AfD; the first crashed (like seven other aircraft in the US on that day alone ), but it's still not notable. -- Charlene  00:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. nn beyond rescue - it doesn't even have a nickname. Clarityfiend 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pages are notable and should not be deleted. Each aircraft has saved hundreds of lives and are therfore notable by hundreds of people if not thousands. If we can't speak of notable aircraft, why don't we delete Air Force One and Marine One off WP too?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The300WhisperGuy (talk • contribs)
 * Comment These aircraft do not pass the criteria set out in WP:NOTE. No independent, non-trivial third parties are writing about them specifically as aircraft. Notability is not subjective. Air Force One has significant third-party notice, with unrelated parties writing articles and even books about it. These haven't gained notice from outside, and therefore they are not notable. I'd also add that they are only three of likely tens of thousands of aircraft being used for the same purposes worldwide. They're not that unusual. -- Charlene 07:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge part of article into Bell 206. -Fnlayson 22:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Notability must be attested to by second- or thid-party verifiable sources, which the page fails to do. - BillCJ 22:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article does nothing to show why this particular helicopter is notable. There are a LOT of helicopters being used worldwide for EMS purposes - what makes this one special - where are the sources that talk about this particular helicopter - or even its operator? Nigel Ish 18:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Absolutely not notable. If it were, I'd write an article about N401MA, which has a lot more history than this one! But even it is not notable, so the only place you'll find it is on my user page.  AK Radecki Speaketh  18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. IP198 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - not a notable aircraft. -- Hawaiian717 21:51, 15 June 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.