Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schneider ES-65


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Schneider ES-65

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

An article on a prototype glider, with no independent sources. I am not an expert in unpowered flight, but I am not sure that this particular glider is notable. I am willing, however, to be persuaded. Mattinbgn\talk 03:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete because this site did prove lots of information... but it still didn't point anything significant out. Plus it was already mentioned in the article as an external link. I am part of WikiProject Aviation and still don't see this article containing anything too special.  K50   Dude   ROCKS!   06:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep meets Notability (vehicles) - see section on "Unique vehicles". Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It's not the most interesting aircraft ever, but it seems to demonstrate notability to our bare criteria. Wouldn't bother to write the article myself, but I see no cause to delete it either. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This was the last glider designed and built by Edmund Schneider Pty Ltd.  One of  the first was the Schneider Grunau Baby.  The article is shamefully sparse at present but it deserves to be expanded, and other articles created to cover the more successful glider types produced in Australia by Edmund Schneider Pty Ltd.  I am willing to work towards expanding that coverage.  Dolphin51 (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - just really needs more work rather than deleting. MilborneOne (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2009 (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.