Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boeing Yellowstone Project

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. I am withdrawing this deletion debate as I am convinced by the sources provided that this is real and the consenus seems to be keep anyway. However I do feel that Y3 needs a source and so do the claimed specifications. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing Yellowstone Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

As can be seen on the talk page, the verifiability and factual accuraccy of this article has been debated. Alot of the sources reliability are also debatable. They seem to be very speculative. For example, the flight international source listed briefly states "Believed to be codenamed Yellowstone 1 (Y1)". It can be argued that this article is crystalgazing. A google search doesn't reveal any clear articles confirming this claim. In fact this source from the boeing website states that it does not plan to develop a "Boeing 797" passenger jet in the forseeable future. This source mentions that Boeing are thinking about flights in the distant future but there is no mention of "The Yellowstone Project" or the "Boeing 797" which redirects to this page. Also, no magazines or newspaperss have mentioned this to my knowledge. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This certainly appears real, although the codename Yellowstone is disputable. The article should be cleaned up and attributed to sources. The lead time on development of something like an aircraft is certainly extensive and the company will always be working on the "next generation" of something. --Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sonic cruiser, mentioned in the source provided above, was scrapped. See Boeing Sonic Cruiser. The name "Yellowstone" is disputable and also see this from the boeing website which says,

"Boeing is not planning to build a 1,000 passenger commercial airplane dubbed the "797," based on the blended wing body (BWB) concept or any other futuristic concept. It's certainly not in our commercial market forecast, which goes out for 20 years. We think the commercial airplane market favors point-to-point routes, and we're developing the 787 as the perfect match to help meet that demand."

Yes it is true that Boeing are probably developing something but without a clear source explaining what they are developing and by what name, it is just crystalgazing. The article itself doesn't tell me what Boeing are developing. In short, this article just tells me that Boeing are working on Y1, Y2 and Y3. These names can't be found in any reliable sources. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 22:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what does the Boeing 797 have to do with this, the 797 is not mentioned in the article in question. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 797 redirects there. Also the source states:

"Is there a blended wing in the works? Are there floor plans of it?

No, not for a commercial airplane. But having said that, I should point out that Boeing Phantom Works, the company's advanced research and development group, tells me it is conducting research on the BWB concept with NASA and the U.S. Air Force. They're working to better understand what they describe as the BWB's "fundamental edge-of-the-envelope flight dynamics" and structural characteristics. The Air Force is interested in the BWB concept for its potential as a flexible, long-range, high-capacity military aircraft. "

Please explain what the article is trying to tell me other than there are new aircrafts being developed by Boeing using new technology to replace the old range. As I said above unless you can tell me whats being developed, its crystalgazing as none of the thigns in the article is verifiable by a reliable source. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 22:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the bulk of your problem is Boeing 797 then nominate that for deletion. It was already deleted once and its not mentioned by this article. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, forget the 797. This article is basicaly telling me about the name "Yellowstone" which is unverifiable. All the supposed new technologies which this articles claims to be implemented to this so called "Yellowstone" are also unverifiable. Without a source telling me exactly what is being developed and by what name, this is just crystalgazing and isn't worth a whole article. This is something that can just be mentioned in the future section of the boeing article. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 23:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I've added some more links to articles from Flight International's http://www.flightglobal.com website that verify Yellowstone 1 through 3, there are several written by aviation author Guy Norris (Amazon book list for evidence of who the author is). Based on the magazine they are published in and the authors, they appear to be fairly reliable. There are also several news articles from 2001 to 2007 that refer to Yellowstone as the project name for the Boeing 787. Here's an example of those. Maybe the 797 redirect needs to be directed elsewhere or deleted, but project yellowstone seems to be real enough to be written about by Los Angeles aviation author Guy Norris and Seattle aerospace reporter James Wallace. --Dual Freq (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well known and well sourced. While the "797" name is speculative, Y1/737RS and Y3 are notable in the online aviation community (such as at Airliners.net). Boeing has stated that they expect the Y1/737RS to enter service around 2015. Nothing has really been mentioned for Y3 yet, however, it will likely enter service after Y1 does. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 02:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't actually know whether or not this article is suitable for WP or not, but I would say Keep. However, if it is a delete, the article is welcome at PlaneSpottingWorld and I will rehome it in due course, regardless of whether or not the AfD "passes" or "fails" Bluegoblin7 11:18, 22 January 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.