Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PeepLaukFlyingWing

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 Userfy. moved to User:Flyingthing/PeepLaukFlyingWing (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PeepLaukFlyingWing

Non-notable home-built project. Project has not yet even achieved success. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even non-successful flying wings are notable in aviation history. Considering the 11 year effort and excellent craftmanship it really deserves to be listed. Flyingthing^ChatMe! — Flyingthing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Many people spend long years creating wonderful pieces of craftwork for their own enjoyment. This does not make such efforts notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, could you then pass here some links to post WWII flying wing glider ? .. of comparable parameters ? Or twin-engine motorglider ? Or competition class flying wing glider ? I might agree that maybe it is too early to make it public. Flyingthing^ChatMe! —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I would suggest that reference be made to the WikiProject Aircraft standards for this exact issue found at Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft). These guidelines indicate that it does not currently meet the notability standard, but it is quite possible that it will in the near future. - Ahunt (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to sandbox. I agree with Ahunt that until it actually flies and is covered in the mainstream aviation press, it does not meet WP:AIR notability standards ... yet. Should it prove successful, though, I have little doubt but that it will be notable for the reasons given here and in the article. I would encourage that the article be moved to the creator’s sandbox (or offwiki) for continuing development until it meets inclusion standards and can be recreated in mainspace. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to sandbox. I am with User:Askari Mark on this one - move it to the sandbox and then once it meets the project criteria, which it should soon, recreate the article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbox: until it functions and receives more coverage, if not then delete per the logic presented concerning BLP notability in WP:BLP1E.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:14, 23 May 2009 (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.