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 delete. Hog Farm _Talk 03:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NACA Technical Note No. 1341 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fail WP:GNG obscure article from obscure publication that is over 70 years old Rogermx (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are a total of 10 of these articles here still around [1] with several others having been deleted at AFD [2][3][4][5][6]. I don't see any of these reports being more notable than the rest, could maybe be bundled into this nomination. Thjarkur (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you bundle several articles into one nomination? Rogermx (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikisource as a public domain government publication. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing here worth transwikiing. This article consists of a slightly edited version of the first three paragraphs, and the last two paragraphs, of the technical note. The intervening 15 pages and the 30 or so pages of appendices do not appear in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with the rest of those in the category. This article just a subset of the full 54-page document, so transwiki is not appropriate, not that it's wikisource's place to attempt to log the millions of documents produced by the government every year. Reywas92^Talk 23:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The question is not whether the science described in this technical note is notable. The question is whether the technical note itself is notable as a publication. As no sources other than the note itself have been provided, my inclination is to assume that it isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough to warrant it's own dedicated article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Requires more notable sources Jenyire2 19:32, 5 February 2021 (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.