Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucher aircraft tractor


 * 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   no consensus. L Faraone  01:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Bucher aircraft tractor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Although I cannot easily assess the existence of print rerefences to the subject, there is no significant online coverage of the subject in either English or German (searching for "Bucher Flugzeugschlepper"). There are some listed for sale; there are a couple of WP:SPSes listing all equipment of the Swiss military on which it is mentioned. There is one ref listed in the article, this being the operations manual for the vehicle. There was another ref listed, the Schweizerische Militärmuseum Full, but I removed this as I could not find any mention of the subject in the museum's website. There are two ELs in the article, one is a listing in a WP:SPS database of all Swiss military vehicles; the other is a database listing on the official Swiss Armed Forces database of all its equipment. I removed some other ELs, which were links to youtube videos; a link to an image on a SPS and a link to an image on a blogspot page. I also edited to remove a large amount of material which appears to have been translated from the German WP article on the subject, but which isn't properly referenced there either and may be WP:OR. None of what I removed demonstrates notabililty of the subject, nor does what remains in the article now. YSSYguy (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. YSSYguy (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. YSSYguy (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. YSSYguy (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am against the deleting of this page about the Bucher aircraft tractor, it is about the most important aircraft tug of the Swiss Air Force. This articel exist also in the german wikipedia, and unfortunatly many sources can be found only in german. A lot of text, pictures (pectures are a referenc to) and references are deleted by YSSYguy. He deleted a few times the sole civil user JuAir out of the user list and now after i add it again  he will deelet the page now. I see no reason to delet this page  about this aircraft tug who the swiss air force use for every aircraft type they have. FFA P-16 (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please provide the sources in German that might indicate the subject's importance and notability. YSSYguy (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Pushback, where it is already covered, but the sources required for a standalone article seem not to be present.  Sandstein   05:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Generic proposal for aircraft tractors. Jane's Airports, Equipment and Services for the appropriate period might well help establish notability, though I do not have a copy to hand. But I agree there is insufficient notable material for a standalone article, especially once the trivia are pruned. However I think Pushback is not the right home because this article is part of a wider problem: there are several articles similar to this one and some have also been tagged for AfD. The list, tagged and untagged, includes (but may not be limited to):
 * Bucher aircraft tractor
 * M2 High Speed Tractor
 * MB-2 tow tractor
 * MOWAG-AEG
 * U-30 Tow Tractor
 * Bunching them all together into one article seems a bad idea, as the infoboxes would become overpowering. So I'd suggest the default would be to include them on the manufacturer's page(s) or, if there is no such page, use a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE. For example the Bucher and MOWAG-AEG tractors were designed specifically for the Swiss Air Force so they can go on that operator's page(s), possibly a new Swiss Air Force ground equipment page.
 * &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not merge all to List of aircraft tractors or something? There's no rule that says that we must include infoboxes for all of them there.  Sandstein   08:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It is also a sub page of the MOWAG page it is in this case a description of a MOWAG Vehicle. FFA P-16 (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - or incorporate somewhere else as already mentioned. There is norearthly reason why an aircraft tractor should have its own article. A generic article on Ground equipment should suffice.--Petebutt (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep there will be references in specialist press about this. It's the sort of thing that will have been researched. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps with your degree of perspicacity you will be able to tell me what the winning Lotto numbers will be next week. If the article creator would just produce his sources that demonstrate Notability - he edited the original article on the German WP as well, of which this is basically a translation - then there is no issue; but I'm not finding any. I have found a total of 18 ghits for "Bucher FS 10 Flugzeugschlepper" of which there is a WP:SPS; a website reviewing the SPS; a german-language aircraft discussion forum; a scale modellers' forum; some WP mirror sites; a company selling military surplus equipment that has some for sale; a couple of images; and a couple of Swiss governmental web pages. Searching for "Bucher FS 10" yields 27 ghits, but apart from those brought up by the first search it's more modellers' forums, more images and more WP mirror sites. Again, please produce sources demonstrating notability. YSSYguy (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is the sort of thing that will have been researched because it's the sort of thing that certain men (well mostly men) are interested in - in that regard aircraft tractors are like trains or cars or buses or trucks or planes or whatever.  That you don't have a basic understanding of this is somewhat disheartening, but you clearly don't, and without such an understanding, you won't be able to find any references because you won't be looking in the right places.  The right places to look will be in print books, in German, by certain men.  If you haven't checked these properly, (and you haven't) then IMHO you shouldn't be nominating this for deletion. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thinking of the wider context, what if this were an American equipment for an American operator? A lack of Google hits or the language barrier would not stop a torrent of references from the specialist press. But because this is Swiss/German nobody is looking. Are we going to keep American articles but delete non-English articles just because the formalities are harder to work through? We need to look in all of the English, German, French and Italian specialist presses. Surely the least we can do is allow the non-English article a good long breathing space. Above I suggested Jane's Jane's Airports, Equipment and Services. Has anybody been able to look? (apologies but I simply do not have the time). &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can go to work in the morning, drive around on the apron, and find aircraft tugs manufactured in several different countries, but I very much doubt that any of them would be notable, regardless of their country of origin. As for keeping American articles, I PRODded articles about two American aircraft tugs a few days ago - those articles have no references at all. Even a database listing in Jane's for those and the Bucher would not equate to Notability for any of them. YSSYguy (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But they aren't advertised on WP:DELMIL and you didn't PROD the most likely to invoke defense, the M2 High Speed Tractor from WWII, which is equally poorly referenced. It would be interesting to see what posting all three of these on WP:DELMIL would throw up. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

FFA P-16 (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I dont agree with YSSYguy s deleting, also the deleting of one of the fact sheets links relatet to the official VBS page about this aircrafttug just because ther its writen it uses aviatic fuel and on the private page about it diesel fuel.  In fact it was made to use aviaticfuel  but because of the poison additiv ethoxol (anti-ice) the air force switchet to diesel (it would stil run with both). I also dont agree of the deleting of the pictures, because they act also as referenc that this tug is used for differend Aircrafttypes and as tractor for weapons trailer (AIM-9) (and the only civil user the JuAir), the youtube clip acts as reference for the use of the floorlight in the aircraft cavern.   It is on one hand a page about a Swiss air Force gound vehicle  but it is on the other hand also a page about one of the MOWAG  (former Bucher) vehicle. It was  not easy to find material/references about it in german, but in the end it was enough to keep the page on the german wikipedia.
 * Well any aircraft tug can be used to move any aircraft for which it is rated, and can be used to tow trailers as well, so none of the images demonstrate Notability. I didn't delete the fact sheet link - you had it as an External Link, I moved it to the References section where it belongs. I tagged a sentence about the vehicle using diesel because of the fact sheet, now you have removed the tag without providing a reference. So, I have a question: is the material you are adding to the article based on what you personally know about the vehicle? YSSYguy (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Isee where you come from, but not any aircraft tug can used on any aircraft (an aircrafttype can be too heavy) I just wantet to point out that this one can be used for every aircraft type in the Swiss Air Force (pulling a full loaded F/A-18 uphill brings it to its limits. This is the reason why at Meiringen AFB also the bigger Douglas aircraft tug are, to pull the F/A-18 into and out of the cavern). It is possibel to pull other stuff as a aircraft  with most of the aircraft tug, but  the Swiss Air Force use only this type as tractor for the engine-start trailer and so one and for the "carello"Team (the team who has to change the wheel if an aircraft with a flat tire block the runway). I tryed to give to every informatin I add on the page a reference, the fact sheets, the pictures (as reference to the JuAir part), pictures of differend aircraft used with this aircraft tug (DHC-6, Fa900,F/A-18, Puma/Cougar, BAe Hawk) and the youtube clip as referenc for the work with it in a aircraft cavern. In the Military Museum Full is such a Aircraft Tug with a description plate, it is not shown or listet on the homepage (like many other vehicles there also for eg. the MOWAG Shark,M-113, NVA T-72 Tank and so on).e  Some things I postet here (and not on the page) for eg the story  about the avation petrol / diesel, or the carello team I can't prove with a reference because this are things i just personnally know about the vehicle (and this dosent count on wikipedia) because I made the driving  permission for it in 2000.

FFA P-16 (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "not any aircraft tug can used on any aircraft (an aircrafttype can be too heavy)" - which is why I wrote "any aircraft tug can be used to move any aircraft for which it is rated". As for the rest, basically it's notable because you say it is; as all you have is the tug's operations manual, a plaque in a museum, a database entry listing basic specifications of the vehicle and nothing else, some pictures taken by you or a friend of yours, some other pictures that are of such poor quality it's impossible to tell what sort of tug is depicted, and a Youtube video that doesn't even mention the vehicle by name - we only 'know' it's a Bucher because you tell us it is. YSSYguy (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)~

@YSSYguy and whats about the links to the official and inoffical webside datapages you saw by your self? Sorry but if you have a look at this sheets and then at the photos (even SOME but not all have a bad quality) and the youtube clip you can clearly see that it is the same type.I don't see why you critisze this evidences, it is obviously that the clip and the photos show this, also no one put this in question on the german wikipedia. It is disapointing that you put in so much efford to delet this page. FFA P-16 (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC) @MilborneOne, it is not only to see as article about ground equipment in aviatic, it is also part of the topic swiss Military vehicles, and it is not a stand-alone because it is part of differend sub pages who dealing with MOWAG vehicles in detail. So please don't see this not only from the "aviatic" side. FFA P-16 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete very limited use and like most ground equipment is not really notable, may be worth putting in a big list of aircraft ground equipment but not a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. There will almost certainly be usable information in Jane's, though it will be a while till I have a chance to check for myself. Deleting because of the absence of online sources is absurd, except for those relatively few topics that will certainly have them if they are at all notable .  Sandstein's second proposal, to merge to a article on Aircraft tractor is what would otherwise make the most sense. Considerations such a "very limited use" are not appropriate for an encyclopedia-- Wikipedia is not an abridged encyclopedia limited to the most commonly used topics (the German Wikipedia, which has considerably stricter notability requirements in general than we do,  at one point intended to limit itself to 1 million articles, and even they have gone over --they're at 1.6 million by now.)  Subject that are part of industrial infrastructure are greatly under-represented. That they are uninteresting to the majority of likely users should not be a factor--almost all  topics on WP are of interest only to a minority, but together they make up a comprehensive encyclopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep DGG sums it up nicely. The nominator can't reach paper sources, so delete this?  Pardon?  As an aside, I would advise the article needs substantial cleanup but by no means deletion.  Maybe if the aviation project could expend as much energy in improving these types of articles as they do trying to delete them, we'd have a substantially enriched encylopedia.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not your first sideswipe at the WikiProject Aviation community. I am not a project member so let me defend them. These guys are not a small cadre of sworn PoV editors, but like any Wikipedia community they are a moderate-sized herd of cats, some foolish and some wise. Just because you bump up against the odd cat once in a while, please don't go disparaging the whole herd in public. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess as a non-member, you have seen the aviation project's talk page with is strikingly dominated by AFDs and not much else. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Jimminy Jillikers, RamblingMan! Are you adopting a position opposite to the alleged "cabal" you have been banging on about lo these many weeks as a matter of personal policy? If it is mentioned in Jane's (which is not yet shown to be the case) of course there will be useful information, it's a directory, but an entry in a directory does not demonstrate Notability. It will have some specifications and be evidence that it exists, but you and I exist and we aren't Notable (as far as I know - you aren't some famous dude lurking on WP and accusing people of sinister behaviour for shits and giggles are you?). No-one has yet come up with anything demonstrating Notability, but we have several people arguing "keep, because there simply must be something about it out there"; or "merge into something else", but how is a list of vehicles with no significant coverage any better than a set of articles about vehicles with no significant coverage? YSSYguy (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @RamblingMan. If you dig that little bit further, you will see that most of those AfDs are posted by an IP editor. There are no IP editors in the list of project members, so you can't so quickly blame the members for that. Of course you could follow up the AfD discussions and gather stats on what members have said individually and collectively, or if you are suspicious of IP sockpuppetry, ask for that to be investigated. Or you could just accept that paranoia is a life hazard. ;-) &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, those are images in general. Dig back a little further, you'll find many, many AFD and prod chats between project members (not IPs).  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you are choosing to dig deeper. Is this body of AfDs breaching policy or guidelines? If so then take action and I will support you, if not then you and I have nothing to complain about. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you asked me to dig "that little bit further". I didn't need to.  I've witnessed the activities of teh handful of active aviation project members, and if you care to look, archives bare testimony to the fact that article deletion is on the forefront of their mind.  I'm simply responding to your original cat-herding post here.  Incidentally, it's hardly a sideswipe, it's a full frontal trout.  If some of the energy which went into attempting to eliminate these articles was redirected into making them better, we'd have a better encyclopedia.  Now go sue me for stating the bleeding obvious.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I invited you to. Not quite the same as asking. Are you asking me to sue or just inviting? <;oD &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooooh. So "inviting" isn't quite the same as "asking"... how ... precise.  Sue away Steely, sue away.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good morning (well it is over here). WP:SUE redirects to No legal threats, so I wouldn't dream of falling for that one. But I come back to my original point: just because a couple of cats have peed in your bed is no reason to go kicking every cat you meet. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, but there are only three or four cats, and they've all peed in the bed. Bad cats. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Aviation/Members lists a lot more than four. At least some would seem to be house-trained. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A bare pawful are active. Miaow. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So why trout all of them? They might wake up and eat it. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:02, 24 July 2013 (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.


 * Is again Nominated for deletion by The Banner: Articles_for_deletion/Bucher_aircraft_tractor_(2nd nomination)FFA P-16 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)