Deletion of Lockheed XF-104

Comment: and '''Strongly Oppose''' this move which was not discussed on the talk page even though the primary editor made a sincere effort to involve others in the creation of the article and it represents his first attempt at crafting a Wikipedia article. This flies in the face of "don't bite the newcomers." I question the use of an Afd when a merge tag was sufficient. What meagre evidence that was presented also does not coincide with what is now a well written and well researched article on a prototype aircraft that had been featured as a separate chapter in Steve Pace's book, "X-Fighters..." FWIW I am also calling for a '''Speedy conclusion''' under the  clause
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOWBALL)

Comment: Nimbus227 points out precedent in keeping, so good point, but I'm inclined to merge on the grounds that the protos, in my understanding, don't differ terribly much from the actual plane that comes out.  Nimbus, as for the issue with the F-104 article having problems, remember, you can always |fix them
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD)