Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viking Aircraft Inc.


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Viking Aircraft Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CORP. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the product (a powered parachute, "at least six" sold) and product line for the company:
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep all three. The independent third parties refs already cited establish WP:GNG and meet WP:CORP. There is a longstanding consensus on WikiProject Aircraft that all aircraft types that have been flown meet WP:N and should have articles about them. Due to the number of aviation publications that do reviews, refs are almost always available, even if on paper. As is the case here, multiple refs are already cited. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge, keep and move the three articles into one. First of all, the Viking powered parachute is an ultralight aircraft type that flew and as such passes the notability criteria for aircraft (the fact that its wing was inflated by forward air pressure after the manner of a paraglider is neither here nor there). The Viking II is a variant which has too little information to support its own article and should be merged into the main article. The company has no notability outside of its one product range and its article should similarly be merged in. But I am unsure what the new all-in-one article should be titled, as sources are extremely slim, with both St Andrews Viking and Viking Aircraft Viking (currently a redirect) being plausible. At least there was once a website for Viking Aircraft Inc. (Internet Archive), so my preference would be to move it over the redirect to Viking Aircraft Viking unless and until some other company provenance emerges. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all Passes WP:GNG with RSs. NTEMP Lightburst (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources? World Directory of Leisure Aviation 2003-04 appears to be the only (possibly) acceptable one (offline, so who can tell?). In the company article, references 2 and 3 are for a different company, 4 is just the number of hits on the company website, and 5 is a bare FAA entry. In the Viking II article, there's the World Directory and FAA entry again, a Wayback machine "reference" with no link or explanation as to what it's supposed to support, and two company links. In St Andrews Viking, there are two directories and a shopping guide. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus that the aircraft are notable and should be kept. However, there is no consensus yet about whether Viking Aircraft Inc meets the applicable community-wide guideline, WP:NCORP. For those advocating redirect as an alternative to deletion it would be helpful to state which article this company should be redirected to.
 * Merge - nothing on the company page seems to indicate any notability whatsoever, however the aircraft they produced does have notability - thus they should be merged into the name of the aircraft they produced.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge Agree with Nid.29 above. The company does not meet the criteria for notability. While the longstanding consensus on WikiProject Aircraft deals with the notability of aircraft, not with their commercial manufacturing company. As such the correct criteria is WP:NCORP and this topic fails those criteria as there are no in-depth articles on the company itself. *edit* Changed !vote to Delete since realistically there is no content worthy of merging. A redirect is also not appropriate as it is highly unlikely to be a search term. */edit*  HighKing++ 11:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all passes WP:GNG Wm335td (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Only one page to redirect it to - the one for the aircraft they produced.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   23:05, 22 December 2019 (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.