Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsaigumi UAV

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tsaigumi UAV

Tsaigumi UAV (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)

• Was speedy-delete-tagged as a copyvio of https://www.africanmilitaryblog.com/2018/02/Tsaigumi-UAV.html and http://www.nairaland.com/4349328/tsaigumi-uav-nigerian-air-force , but in Talk:Tsaigumi UAV PvOberstein says "This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... I deleted most if not all of the copyright-violating text. The subject is worth having an article on. This is fixable.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the copyvio has been removed from the current version, would it be enough to do a revision deletion to only remove the edits that contained copyvios? I think the subject itself might be notable and of sufficient public interest to include an article. Yes, the current version doesn't even make it clear what it's about, but it's a work in progress. Or perhaps draftify so that someone can improve the article sufficiently. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As far as I can tell, pretty much every aircraft has a page on Wikipedia (I'm not entirely sure what the notability rules for vehicles are, admittedly). But it's a multi-role UAV being used by the Nigerian government, and it has an interesting development history. A former Nigerian President is also disputing the noteworthiness, claiming his successor is taking credit for developments that occurred during his watch. Interesting stuff. Furthermore, I believe what text violated copyright has been removed, please advise if you see any that still remains. PvOberstein (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Now that I've looked around (and the article has been improved), I can see it passes WP:GNG. There are many news articles specifically about this military drone, including the odd political controversy (apparently if a previous Nigerian president had a drone, he has "dibs" so that no future president can have a drone, in the same way that every US president after Washington had to have their own teeth). Also, WP:AVINOTE and WP:NAIR indicate that aircraft types will almost always be notable – although these are just the opinion of the Aviation WikiProject and not formal Wikipedia policy or guidelines, I'm willing to accept their advice in this case. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I ran the Earwig WP:COPYVIO tool and PvOberstein appears to have cleared up the issues. The Jane's article on its own establishes notability and the Daily Post article reinforces the point. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Military kit is usually notable. Coverage of this type passes GNG. I do not see a copyvio (and copyvios, if an entire article, should be speedy deleted) - and even if there was a copyvio the article could've been stubbed down to 2 lines with supporting refs (which we have enough of in the present article).Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject is notable and the COPYVIO seems to have been cleaned up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 14 March 2018 (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.