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. --Kubigula (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable aircraft. PROD was declined based on the addition of a reference, but minor mentions do not notability make. Thousands of aircraft participated in strategic bombing raids during World War II; hundreds, if not thousands, received names, etc. from their crews. While great for morale (and often with artwork easy on the eyes), and while we should never forget what was sacrifced by their crews, very, very few of these aircraft were, or are, notable, and this is not one of them. The main claim to notability appears to be its association with George McGovern, but notability is not inherited, and there is no evidence of this aircraft meeting the WP:GNG in any other way. Worth a mention in McGovern's article, perhaps, but not an article of its own. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a very clear and succinct summary of the situation, there is insufficient establishment of the notability from sources. One cited is taken from the comments section of an online article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG - Ahunt (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• MergeDelete to George McGovern, most likely as a one-liner with a citation or two. Too little notability for an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The aircraft's pilot is very notable for his post-war activities. The planes he flew during the war aren't. Nick-D (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication that the aircraft is notable enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not worth having its own article, can be covered just as well in the far-more notable pilot's article. Kyteto (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect to the article George McGovern. Although the subject independently does not meet WP:NN, as part of the subject George McGonvern the content passes WP:VER and thus should be moved there. Since the content would be moved a redirect should be left in this namespaces place. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except there's no content to merge. George McGovern#Military service actually has more detail already than this article does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps then, it should be redirected to the section George McGovern#Military service with the content deleted? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2011 (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.