Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euroflag

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. Wrong forum. Merge can be proposed on the article's talk page, or alternatively if there is no opposition expected, just go ahead and do it. Michig (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Euroflag

[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)

merge with Airbus Defence and Space and keep as a redirect, not notable enough for its own page. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Per WP:BEFORE AfD is NOT the or procedure to propose merges. Incorrect use of AfD. Use WP:MERGEPROP instead. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a little background this is one of three article merges to Airbus Defence and Space that were done and backed out by myself as a group as I believe possibly controversial and definitely without attribution by the merger. I note the nom. is a new page patroller and seems to have raised the AfD as part of his work. My understanding is this would have been very notable in its day, and extant in the literature of its day, and therefore always notable. As per the comment on the take there are at least two merge targets, albeit one is likely more sensible, but that is a merge discussion not an AfD discussion and one of the targets may likely be itself a merge at some point. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I say on the talk page, I am in two minds about the need to merge as I am not sure there is much to merge. Hence why I thought a delete discussion was best, I want to see if anyone else thinks there may not be enough here to merge.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven To keep it simple if you accept the speedy keep I undertake to do a redirect (within 3 days) to Airbus Defence and Space which has sufficient already to avoid WP:SURPRISE. I can't do this immediately as I have to go do RL things and cant do Wikipedia while driving. If you do the redirect that's fine but I might add some Rcats etc or tweak to a redirect to section or anchor. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AS I said I launched this to get a bit more input as to its actual notability.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of notability then please comment on suitably of the existing references added to the article. Note also the links from the books link above. Also Google scholar. Meets WP:GNG etc.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, both are about the Airbus A400M, not the company. Thus it is not notable in its own right, but rather it inherits its notability from the aircraft.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 20 September 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.