Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinkel He 231

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 merge to EWR VJ 101. Tone 11:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heinkel He 231[edit]

[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) 07:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment there isn't much here, but this seems to be a real project, and sources are not too hard to find [1]. Either keep or merge to EWR VJ 101 if there isn't anything more to say. —Kusma (t·c) 09:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there seems to be enough available to show notability. Although I wouldn't disagree if a page was created for the V/STOL projects, and this material was merged there.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the de-Wiki article shows that GNG can be met, and a decent article written. Struck - woefully lacking sources. Mjroots (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems enough to justify an article, subject to expansion with more sources to meet GNG. Otherwise, a merge should be considered. I think deletion at the moment would in haste. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into EWR VJ 101 and redirect. Not enough sources out there to establish notability as an independent design project, but it is certainly part of the development history of the VJ 101. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to EWR VJ 101 - this one of the two first prototypes in that project (VJ 101A by Heinkel and VJ 101B by Messerschmitt - [2]). While plausibly this could be a standalone (not sure regarding GNG of VJ 101A by itself - but it could meet it) - we don't need a short little WP:SPINOFF stub on VJ 101A while the main project is much more developed. Barring a major expansion of this 46 word article - this could easily fit in a subsection in VJ 101. Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Odd that the German and Japanese wikis have an article on this design but the English one is about to be deleted, the English WP generally leads the other wikis on aviation subjects. This is a very interesting period in aviation and the origins of aircraft that did materialise from these design projects can be traced using these articles. The German article is a good size and is sourced from FlugRevue (equivalent of the UK Flight magazine). The Japanese article links this source where photos of two distinct designs appear, they are either full-size mock ups or models, we don't know without further research but it is obvious that some effort and expense was involved. As I researched and created NBMR-3 I would be very happy to work with the article creator to build this article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into EWR VJ 101 and redirect. - From 1 2 3 and others, it seems like there were at least three designs for the He 231, the first, a tailsitter one, the second, with internal engines only and a inlet cone for a nose, and a third one with engines on the ends of it's wings, later referred to as the VJ 101A. The current article specifies VJ 101A in its lead, but shows a diagram for the second design. I believe the first two designs never went beyond the drawing board and the third only had two miniature wind tunnel models made. As it's last version before being merged-into/succeeded by the EWR VJ 101C was referred to as the VJ 101A I feel that this should be covered in the article EWR VJ 101 and treated like the "A" variant/prototype of the VJ 101 series alongside the "B" "C" "D" and (if it exists) "E" variants/prototypes. - Scio c (talk) 04:32, 19 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.