Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skytrain 500

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. per WP:SK1, and a large {{trout}} to the nominator for wild misuse of the AfD process. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skytrain 500

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

The reference quoted is incorrect and should read Airship Industries Skyship 500!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Petebutt (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why not just move the article then? - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I have suggested to the author, but it would be a lot more than just move the article.--Petebutt (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a notable topic so moving it and fixing the article seems a better solution. We don't delete articles just because they need improving. - Ahunt (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Airship Industries Skyship 500 and supplement with information from the Skyship 500 section of the main Airship Industries article. Note that a more extensive article already exists for the later Airship Industries Skyship 600. --Finngall ^talk 15:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In neutral... I found this image on the National archives and the caption text read "A right rear view of Skytrain 500, a 164-foot British-built airship undergoing tests at the center. The Naval Air Development Center is sponsoring the test project to determine if airships offer a practical military value to the Navy. NATC is evaluating the airship's flying qualities, performance, and vulnerability to radar, 06/23/1983". Thought it was odd how little info there was... even the most obscure aircraft have some info. I make a lot of typo's when creating articles too fast, but in this case, the caption was the root cause. If it can be moved.. great. If not I'll blow it away and make a new one with the correct name. FlugKerl (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I agree with FlugKerl on this one. Sam.gov (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article in progress, move carried out--Petebutt (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2014 (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.