Wiki How:Articles for deletion/Beriev Be-2500

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) DannyS712 (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beriev Be-2500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This has just been converted to a redirect (twice) as "not notable". I can see no prior discussion to justify this, and it's certainly contentious. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The reason given of 'This is an unbuilt dead project, as such it has to pass GNG and doesn't.' is no reason to blank an article. We have many articles on unbuilt projects that still meet GNG. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andy Dingley: Point of order: the article was never blanked, and I'd appreciate it if you'd strike that misleading claim. It was redirected to the general subject matter. We do have many articles on unbuilt projects that still meet GNG - heck, I've written quite a few of them. That WP:OTHERSTUFF meets GNG. This doesn't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You blanked and redirected it here.

Not even a merge and redirect, the overall GEV article still had an unexplained photo of the Be-2500, and now a broken link to this article. The text content related to this topic had gone from the WP corpus. So, I see 'blanking' as a perfectly reasonable description. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Google search does not show much of substantive media coverage of concept, mainly sourced to company. Reywas92^Talk 01:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are plenty of independent reliable sources found by these searches and these books have some coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. passes WP:GNG. The topic is encyclopedic and good for future inventionsMgbo120 (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgbo120: Did you really mean delete there? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley:corrected. I meant to type "keep". Was a mistake dear. Thanks for reaching outMgbo120 (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there of GNG meeting for this unbuilt project? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This one has enough refrerences. Only because it is (yet) an unbuild project, is no reason to delet it. We have a great number of equal projects on wikipedia Boeing Truss-Braced Wing, Bell X-16,... Halbrahm aber voll (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm pretty sure there is enough precedence to keep this article afloat. No reason to delete all articles that are like this. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 09:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody's suggesting deleting all articles like that. "I'm pretty sure" is not a valid argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to redirect. This was redirected twice to a valid topic for this unbuilt project and the most recent time it was restored by a random IP on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This was not built and never will *be* built so we don't follow the "it's an aircraft, it's notable" standard. It has to clearly pass GNG - and as far as I can tell it does not. There was a brief burst of company-sourced interest in this and then - unlike the OTHERSTUFF the IP cited - it died away to nothing. The references in there now are GlobalSecurity (questionable reliability), Beriev (primary source), and Seaplane International, which is the one that is a start at GNG but.. If anyone can find and add additional third-party reliable sources that aren't regurgitations of Beriev's promotion at the time, then I'll happily change to Keep - in fact, find one reference in AvLeak and add it and I'll change on the spot - but barring that, this can be covered in the article it has been redirected to, twice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I found such sources above. I would prefer not to add any to the article as it's over 40 years since I passed my A level in Russian, so I'd prefer to leave it to someone with a bit more fluency, but the sources clearly exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and NOT redirect Redirect this article is a bypassing of an articles for deletion discussion. "Died away to nothing" is no reason to justify a deleting nor a redirection. We have a lot of other unbuilt project who never ever will *be* built. And no one seriously comes up with the proposal to delete or redirect them. These are not isolated cases but established wikipedia standard.... Bell D-188A, Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar, Silbervogel or if whe stay by the Ekranoplan TTS-IS, Boeing Pelican. And BTW~i add this to the article: *Soviet and Russian Ekranoplans, Sergey Komissarov and Yefim Gordon, Ian Allan Publishing Midland, Pages 192 - 199. ISBN:978-1-85780-332-7

Selgis (talk) 09:02, 20 January 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.