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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GIDS Shahpar[edit]

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

No real coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough information here to satisfy the WP:GNG, barely, and standards that have been universally applied to aircraft - it appears to have indeed flown and entered production. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep military aircraft/UAV that entered serial production. a BEFORE convinces me there are enough google news and books hits to pass GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2017 (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.