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 keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude ^talk 08:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Militi M.B.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Notability concerns. This plane was apparently never mass-produced, and it's unclear from the article whether the one model ever flew. Web search just finds wiki-mirrors. Possibly could be merged to Militi M.B.2 Leonardo, which also has notability issues but is at least mentioned in a few printed works. Bruno Militi is a redlink and I don't see coverage for a biographical article. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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) 17:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Doesn't meet general notability standards, but does indeed seem to meet NAIR. Fails WP:GNG. Could only find a single mention in a list of all aircraft ever made. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Militi M.B.2 Leonardo and redirect since Militi M.B.1 article is only stub. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We only put one set of aircraft specifications in an article. A merge would force us to delete one set and focus on the other aircraft. It is not clear to me that that would be appropriate here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I only mean to merge text, not specs table, though mentioning some basic dimensions in text would be good for comparison. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Yes, specs would be lost but they are not so very relevant. Otherwise, Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan olieslagers (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as originator) clearly flew and information was from a reliable source (Janes). Being mass-produced has never been a criteria for aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sourced to a highly reliable source so meets notability requirements. Wikipedia covers more than just mass-production aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Jane's is about as reliable as any source gets. The aircraft flew. If Wikipedia was limited to aircraft that saw mass-production many of the most interestion machines would not merit an entry.TheLongTone (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per the above three comments. WP:NAIR has long held that if a recognisable type flew then it is notable; these "I didn't realise that" nominations do pop up from time to time. This plane is clearly stated as having flown, as cited from a highly respected reliable source; quite why the OP thinks otherwise is a mystery to me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Are all party balloons inherently notable as flying devices? User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:BURDEN. If you can find RS that says they are, then yes they are. However, until then they are not. I wonder whether you may be confusing the linguistic issue of definition with the encyclopedic issue of notability. See also the associated NAIR talk page discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [Updated 13:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)][reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that WP:NAIR is an essay; editors should discuss whether this article meets policy- and guideline-level inclusion standards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. We have five Keep votes, two merge and only the OP's rationale for deletion. While WP:NAIR is indeed a mere essay, it has been endorsed by the Aircraft Wikiproject, used to assess thousands of aircraft articles for over a decade, and stood the test of many challenges such as this one. Do we really need to go over all the old discussions which shaped NAIR in the first place? See for example its talk page. And if we do, then it should be thrashed out on said talk page before coming here, otherwise some Project member will re-implement it for the Militi M.B.1 and y'all will be going round in circles, joy unbounded. Anybody re-assessing the present discussion, please be realistic about this. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets GNG. BilCat (talk) 21:59, 21 November 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.