Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WJ232

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. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WJ232

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

Aircraft not notable for a stand-alone article, has a connection with Peter Carmichael for being used for shooting down a MiG in Korea but that is covered in the pilots article. Contested prod MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peter Carmichael. Clearly a non-notable individual aircraft apart from its connection to this notable aviator, fails to meet the standard for a stand-alone article on an individual aircraft. I have checked the Google hits mentioned on the talk page and most are scale modelling mentions or other passing mentions or inclusion on lists. - Ahunt (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ahunt.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not seem to be notable on its own, and is not a credible search term.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established and the sentence on this aircraft in the Hawker Sea Fury article seems a perfectly adequate level of coverage. Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hawker Sea Fury, as this is an instance of the Sea Fury, not an instance of Carmichael. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete don't see any claim to notability or even an indication that it would be a search term to another article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real idea why this one aircraft would be notable. Individual aircraft would have to have a pretty high notability threshhold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. Anotherclown (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GraemeLeggett -- not a useful redirect to anything. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:35, 3 March 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.