Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alisport Silent 2T

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 10:02Z

[edit] Alisport Silent 2T

Alisport Silent 2T (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Original author created multiple copies of the same page under different variations of the name. Original was deleted through an AfD:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Silent_2_Targa. Article was then recreated and speedy deleted. Prod tag deleted by author without comment. ShaleZero 15:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. ShaleZero 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

please help, instead of deleting..... first of all this article is NOW CHANGED and similar to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_PW-5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher_ASK_21 and many other.... where the title is made up name with the
name of the maker and by the name of the glider. multiple copies were created because the first title Silent 2 Targa was incorrect and nobody helped to change it. It is about a glider: Silent 2 Targa
made by Alisport
and it deserve a place like any other glider, if there is something wrong please help with positive input, instead of deleting it, or at least give a chance of discussing about it.

  • keep The article looks quite satisfactory DGG 01:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Attention DGG: can you tell me how I can rename this page to the correct name Alisport Silent 2 Targa because Alisport Silent 2T is wrong, sorry I made a mistake.

Better to wait till the discussion is closed, Then, be sure you're logged in first, and Just click the move tab at the top & follow directions. For more, see WP:MOVEDGG 00:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Previous versions of this article had problems with POV tone and material being copied from web-pages. Rather than explaining and/or fixing these problems the page was deleted. The person working on it seems to have eventually figured out some of our standards and procedures on their (HIS) own and has produced a perfectly acceptable article. If articles are fixable we should do that rather than deleting them, but we certainly shouldn't continue deleting them after they have been fixed. --CBD 17:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep But work on it Alf photoman 19:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article in its present form is informative. Francisco de Almeida 23:55, 24 February 2007 (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.