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The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moravan Otrokovice Z 43 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since I was the editor contesting the prod, I'll state my rationale. The question seems to me to be whether the Z-43 is a variant of the Z-40 series, and thus deserving of its own article, or merely a subtype, and should be discussed in the Z-40 article. (Of course, the problem is that there is NO Z-40 article, all the variants have their own articles...). In addition to the EASA TCDS for the aircraft, which shows that EASA doesn't treat the Z-40 family as a single type, I have found print references in 'Janes World Aircraft Recognition Handbook' ISBN 0-7106-0343-6 which deals with the type as 'Zlin 42/43/142' (not surprisingly, as they look similar), and in the 'Encyclopedia of World Military Aircraft' ISBN 1-874023-52-2 where the article is titled 'Zlin 42/43' but provides detail mainly on the 43 version. I've found Z-43 specific mods for MSFS [1] and scale models again specifically of the Z-43 [2] and [3]. So it does look like the aircraft gets a measure of attention both as part of the 'family' and on its own. Now, I'll concede that the Z-40 family is a bit of a mess, with aircraft articles redirecting to each other, and perhaps there should be a Z-40 family article, with the subtypes branching off it. But the information would still be on wiki, just shuffled around, so it wouldn't be a delete. MadScot (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we could move this article to Moravan Otrokovice Z 40 series, and then add those sources? PhilKnight (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, to do it properly would mean sorting out all of the Z-40 series articles, gathering them into one, and some of the articles are lengthy, so they might end up being split out again. But it would certainly preserve the info. I'm also not sure if the articles started as one and got split out later, in which case we'd be just going over old ground. But it's one solution. MadScot (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, regardless, you've convinced me - I'll withdraw the nom. PhilKnight (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2008 (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.