Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberts Aircraft

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 speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 14:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Aircraft[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)

~~The defunct company doesn't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Asketbouncer (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would highly suggest that the nominator strike the second and third sentences of the nomination. How interesting something is or how much it's been viewed or edited are not relevant at all to whether an article should be deleted or not. Curbon7 (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~:: agree! removed. However, the template remains for 14 years. Asketbouncer (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note, I struck the nominator's comments as they are a sock. I have not placed a G5 tag on the page as User:Curbon7 commented, however WP:CSK(4) may apply.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:08, 29 September 2021 (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.