Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Focke Wulf Fw 860

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Focke Wulf Fw 860

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary article on an obscure project that wasn't even slated for a prototype, let alone production. A better outlet would be a generic article covering ALL the 1950s and 60s German V/STOL projects Petebutt (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"That doesn't make it invalid. There are many other articles about concept aircraft includng the Focke-Wulf Triebflügel. Wikipedia is aimed to contain all known information and this is a part that interests some people. Some people would like to learn about it." PiggleMcDiggle (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Additional: "I have seen broken Wikilinks referencing the Fw 860 in other articles such as Tail-Sitter and Focke-Wulf. Surely we should be adding articles for them so that other users can select them and learn about the individual aircraft. As a counter to what was said by Petebutt, why should it be included within a generic article? A larger article may also omit much information of the precious little we know about the aircraft." PiggleMcDiggle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read What Wikipedia is not and WP:GNG incorporate this article in a generic article as it does not warrant a stand-alone article.--Petebutt (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not particulaly noteworthy as a concept and has limited coverage for a stand-alone article, far better to create an overview article on all these Focke-Wulf ideas/concepts/projects. MilborneOne (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above; there is virtually no information on the design itself, it's all background stuff. Just another paper aircraft, nothing that makes it in any way particularly notable.TheLongTone (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create a list of Focke-wulf projects as MilboorneOne has mentioned Sam-2727 (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least two of the sources (books) appear to be reliable sources. I would be happy to work with the creator to improve this article, noting that AfD is a last resort and nominating a new user's submissions for deletion without an offer of assistance could be deemed as biting the newcomers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- but the two book citations aren't actually in reference to the article in question. They refer the higher efficiency of another type of plane. I can't find the books online, but that is what I can infer from their context. I'll ask the creator of the article for clarification. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any subject can be notable if it is covered in significant detail by reliable sources, even if it was an idea for a project that didn't go anywhere. Not being able to read the books I don't feel able to comment on whether their content would establish notability per WP:GNG, but Nimbus227's offer is helpful. Would draftifying this until that Nimbus and PiggleMcDiggle have worked up a more mainspace-ready article satisfy everyone? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 23:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.