Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft

: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) 00:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

=[[Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft]]=

:{{la|Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Commercial_Application_of_Military_Airlift_Aircraft Stats])

:({{Find sources|Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft}})

This is a very heavily promotional article about a proposed civilian/reserve military variant of the C-17 Globemaster. It is quite inappropriately biased toward promoting the concept, in great detail. However key sections are based on documents which are claimed but cannot be independently verified, creating a WP:RS problem in addition. It is not clear that it is notable in terms of the GNG. In my view a small section of the C-17 article could discuss this proposal in a much more neutral (NPOV) manner. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The article reads like a promotional essay, and I don't think that this is sufficiently notable in isolation to justify a stand-alone article. Boeing C-17 Globemaster III#Commercial interest (from which, from memory, this article was split) does the job, though it could probably be expanded a bit. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Strong Delete for reasons cited above and the fact that the C-17 program is ending without implementing this concept. The idea has been considered several times and rejected each time.Dhpage (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete I also think, notability is not clear! --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment, is this a sub article of the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III article? If it isn't the content should be highly summarized, merged, and redirected to the article. If it is a sub-article it should be kept, as AfD is not a replacement for improvement to resolve the WP:NOTPROMOTION concern of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

:It appears that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commercial_Application_of_Military_Airlift_Aircraft&oldid=266592934 original content] is based on content [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III&diff=266475805&oldid=266474936 removed] from the C-17 article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete or possibly redirect to Civil Reserve Air Fleet as a one-liner. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This smells of Boeing vanispamcrufttisement; at the very most, as a considered-but-failed project, it needs either to be summarised in one small section of the Main C-17 article, or blown up and restarted as Boeing BC-17 if it's to be a spinout. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete, seems to be entirely promotional. Ducknish (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Snow delete consensus seems to be very clear. Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 02:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete; it reads more like a press release than an encyclopædia article. In principle, it may be possible to write a neutral article - notability isn't very high but there's no rule saying we can't have an article on an abandoned project &c - but we'd have to start from scratch and lean more heavily on secondary sources &c. bobrayner (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete Sounds like a press release. As above. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 19:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

: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.