Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALR Piranha


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

ALR Piranha

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just a study, never realistic plans to build a plane. The Banner talk 23:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * keep it Yes it was "just aproject" and the aircraft was never built. But it was a real project. It was the last project of an swiss fighter aircraft after the FFA N-20 and FFA P-16. an important project for the swiss military and swiss aviatic industrie.Only because it was never build? this is no reason. we have other aircraft projects here on wikipedia here a few examples/It is a project like the ones: Bell X-16Lockheed CL-1200 Rockwell X-30 North American XF-108 Rapier, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, Antonov An-218. If the ALR Piranha has to be deletet all other aircraftprojects would have deletet too. It was a project yes, but the build a cockpit 1:1 layout, the mad differen tests  on windtunnel modells, they thested flightcharacteristics on raido controled scale models, the had plans for special HAS shelters for it.. so its not just a few drawings.

andLiterature is also a Reference FFA P-16 (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Janes all the world's aircraft supplement (18), in Flugrevue, Juni 1980, S. 55 f.
 * Jane's all the world's aircraft, Verlag McGraw-Hill, 1985, S. 205
 * Leichtkampfflugzeug Piranha. In: Schweizerische Bauzeitung: Wochenschrift für Architektur, Ingenieurwesen, Maschinentechnik, Band 96, 1978, S. 636
 * P-16 et autres jets suisses. Le Temps, 1. Dezember 2011


 * Keep. It was a serious project and was written about in more than one reliable source. Just because a project is not completed does not make the project itself unworthy of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: The general standard used for not-built projects by WikiProject Aircraft is found here and says "Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball articles about aircraft that have not yet been built are generally discouraged unless reliable sources provide strong evidence that the project is likely to come to fruition, or it is a project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft." This project doesn't make that criteria as neither organization involved is an established aircraft manufacturer. This might instead be redirected to, and mentioned in, Swiss Air Force instead. - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ahunt. Yes it was a project but if you say this has to be deleted then whe have to put all this ones Bell X-16 Lockheed CL-1200 Rockwell X-30 North American XF-108 Rapier, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, Antonov An-218 and much more also in question. The ETH Zurich was working on this projet, the same ETH who also was working on the Pilatus SB-2 Pelican, on the F+W N-20, on Solarimpuls. Georges Bridel from the ALR had workd bfore also on the FFA P-16. The ALR is still activein the aviatic field with the solar impulse. Yes the TH and ALR  from smale switzerland are not as well known in the world like a Lockheed or Boeing from the big USA. But thisis for me not a reason to delet this page, it was a interesting project and it was part of the swiss Aviatic history nd part of the swiss air force history (the swiss ir force didn't buy it but was involved in the project) BTW here ome informations about ALR [] Please see that the are also work on the solar impuls and other aviatic topics [] FFA P-16 (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC) @Ahunt You have to see the relation you can't expect uch ig aircraft manufacturr like in the USA. The ETH is not an aircraft manufacturer (but also the ZAGI in Russia not but the ZAGI worked for MiG, Sukhoi Tuploev ,..) so i think a famous aircraft building company is not the only important point  for the question if an aircraftproject should be here on wikipedia. The ETH was involved also in the construction of real AC like SB-2 & P-16FFA P-16 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not at all, because those proposed and not-built projects you listed were all done by established aircraft manufacturers, not by a university and non-notable company, neither of which had manufactured an aircraft before. - Ahunt (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: That exactly illustrates my point, it was just an aircraft design project proposal from a non-notable company that had never built aircraft like this and it never went past proposal stage. There was little risk it would ever be built. It is all non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ahunt. But only keeping projects of big companys on wikipedia seems for me not a good point. We ave here not a big aircraft company but the ETH, the ALR company the Swiss air Force and such Persons like George Bridel al this partners worked together for this project and each of this partners had worked in one or an other way on projects before and on real Aircraft Sb-2, N-20 P-16. And each of them are still active in the aivatic industrie. the ETH and the ALR had been also working at the actual Solarimpulse2 HB-SIB. Why should a project of an big aircraftbuilder bee more important than of a group of smale partner who are not in general aircraftbuilder but share theyer work for such a project. Also it is said that SAAB had bought parts of the project for the later SAAB Gripen. BTW not bad for such an "unimportant"project if you get it not only as hand made wooden modell but also as plastic kit ;-) FFA P-16 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ahunt this articels exist to on wikipedia and aren't from big wellknown aircraftcompanys,(in my eyes): no prof that this was realy builtAlekseyev I-212,was never finished Belyayev Babochka and Bartini A-57.
 * Keep: While the article is a bit of a mess at the moment, there does appear to be a fair amount of coverage in Reliable Sources. As well as the sources listed above (and there is substantial coverage (~3/4 page if I remember correctly) in at least one edition of Jane's All The World's Aircraft, I have also found two reasonably substantial articles in the magazine Air International:
 * Coverage of the project, which reached wind tunnel and free-flight scale model testing, and according to the 1992 article was almost selected for license production in an unstated Middle East country, does appear to meet WP:GNG.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Coverage of the project, which reached wind tunnel and free-flight scale model testing, and according to the 1992 article was almost selected for license production in an unstated Middle East country, does appear to meet WP:GNG.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Coverage of the project, which reached wind tunnel and free-flight scale model testing, and according to the 1992 article was almost selected for license production in an unstated Middle East country, does appear to meet WP:GNG.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: there certainly is work to be done, but several much worse articles are not questioned. There are sources and references, there is some imagery, what more could one want? Above all, I am concerned about the people that put a lot of effort into this article and now are threatened with all of that being thrown away. Their work deserves respect and appreciation. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not a Crystal Ball doesn't apply as we are not talking about vague future plans, but an actual project that existed (and which saw significant work done). Just because it wasn't by an established company doesn't deny it notability.NiD.29 (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't dispute the fact that the article still needs much work but it does satisfy the notability criteria. Let's not forget the principle of WP:EVENTUALISM Wikicology (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So, you think that a project out of the 1970s, eventually will delivered a flying plane? The Banner talk 15:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not the point.NiD.29 (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.