Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Alpine Milkman


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Alpine Milkman

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This aircraft is insufficiently notable to merit an independent article. I cannot see any way that it would pass the notability guidelines. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge The information seems well-documented and so, per our editing policy, it should not be discarded when it might be incorporated in some broader article such as 69th Bomb Squadron. Warden (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see where it is notable. One website is a memorial to the squadron, while another is monthly mission reports. The thing is, if we keep and make an article for every plane in the squadron (because in reality, this is just an average plane), we would end up making an article for the planes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Colonel, time and time again you use the "editing policy" argument. that does not trump notability guidelines. i'm not sure why you persist with this weak argument because I've never it sway it anyone. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that WP:PRESERVE refers to the removal of content through editing, and is not part of the notability or, more importantly, deletion policies. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Utterly run-of-the-mill bomber that performed its missions in a routine fashion. Zero notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable and no different to the other 9,000 B-25s and thousands of other combat aircraft that did a similar job. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete run-of-the-mill bomber. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge The aircraft is noteworthy because of the number of mission flown and the number of photos in existence (six) some with unrelated crews posing in front of the aircraft. The Alpine Milkman flew over 187 missions and possibly more.  The Memphis Belle (aircraft) is noteworthy for flying 25.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimBob2u (talk • contribs) 02:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)  — JimBob2u (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:BIGNUMBER, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Memphis Belle was the first bomber to complete 25 missions, at a time when that was a Big Deal Indeed, and became a movie star - of two movies. It's also still extant - unlike this bomber where we don't even know its serial number. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 69th Bomb Squadron. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or even WP:MILUNIT for that matter. A redirect to the unit page, without merging any of the content into it is a good alternative to outright deletion, although I can understands arguments for outright deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable for reasons listed by others. Intothatdarkness 18:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete utterly non notable aircraft as others have described; US-military-cruft-creep. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2012 (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.