Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiller Air Tug

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. In the absence of evidence proving the contrary, the editors arguing that there is insufficient significant coverage to satisfy notability guidelines prevail. ✗plicit 14:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiller Air Tug

[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)

Article with highly promo style about a proposed helicopter (1965) that was never funded. I don't see anything to merge into the existing page on Hiller Aircraft, so it should be a standard delete for WP:What Wikipedia is not. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Aviation. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that it is a promotional style.

I'm not associated with Hiller and I'm not even American. Just an Aerospace engineer but it was a very impressive and interesting concept worthy of retention.

Considering the items that are considered worthy for retention such as minor celebrities etc this clears the bar with a wide margin. JPelham (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article should be cleaned of advertising content. But the subject of the article itself meets GNG--Loewstisch (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Loewstisch, how can a proposed helicopter that was never built meet GNG? There is not SIGCOV, and I cannot see a proposal that funders decided not to support as satisfying any GNG. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm willing to be wrong, but there's a lack of content on the page or easily found that indicate this meets WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it’s quite interesting, but there is no way to verify the information. I’m not against a redirect. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2024 (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.