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 as notability is verified through reliable sources in the article. Any discussion regarding moving the article should be taken to the article talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine Fighter Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is about a collection of planes within a non-notable museum. Article is editors own thoughts and analyses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. WP:NOT#OR Masterpedia 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but more due to the issue of failing notability guidelines per WP:LOCAL. Nothing here to support the fact that this collection (not even sure if you can call it a museum?) is notable. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The museum it's in doesn't even have an article, and there is no evidence of the collection's notability on its own merit. --Mus Musculus 05:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is a poorly written stub, but the collection easily passes the google test. It is not original research within Wiki guidelines. Information contained in it was not referenced but was non-controversial and readily available in the public domain - particularly in print, for anyone with access to a New Zealand library. Some references have now been provided.

The importance of the Alpine Fighter Collection is not so much the present aircraft, but

• 1/ The collection played an important part in expanding the warbird movement in New Zealand beyond trainers such as Harvards and Tiger Moths to the present degree of relative prominence in the warbird world. Though I suspect some Wikipedians may deem all New Zealand non noteable, over 100,000 people visited the collections biannual Easter Airshow, not all of them Kiwis and not a press number, but measured accurately, by ticket sales. (c.f. Oshkosh, which gets a huge well written article for a 2-6x greater attendance, though of course the audience for that airshow are the intrinsically more important Americans). This is not a handful of aircraft in a basement, or a local importance issue like a non-noteable street or library. Over 100,000 people. To quote an authority deletionists may recognise, "Aw, Come On".

• 2/ The collection has international importance for the work returning to airworthy condition a Nakajima Ki 43 "Oscar", (the Japanese Army's main fighter in 1941, and second only to the Zero in importance), and pioneering restoration work on Russian warbirds - in particular returning a fist full of the previously all but extinct Polikarpov fighters to the air, (The I-16 Rata was the leading Republican fighter in the Spanish Civil War, the most numerous Soviet fighters in 1941 and the worlds first retractable undercarriage monoplane fighters when first introduced. None had flown since the early 50s when the collection started. They restored 6).

While there is no reason for deletion, there would be a reasonable argument for combining it with an article on the New Zealand Fighter Pilots Museum. A second best solution would be merging with Tim Wallis and / or Warbirds Over Wanaka stubs, (incidentally, at the risk of encouraging deletionists, the associated Warbirds over Wanaka and Tim Wallis articles could use expansion / wikification). Winstonwolfe 05:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (modified aditional info 10 April 2115 NZ time)Winstonwolfe 09:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep though my first thought is that it should be merged with the NZ Fighter Pilots Museum (using the Museum for the main namespace) Charles (Kznf) 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep but move to New Zealand Fighter Pilots Museum or similar and expand accordingly.-gadfium 19:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 19:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per gadfium. --Limegreen 22:03, 10 April 2007 (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.