Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavern airfield


 * 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   merge to  Aircraft cavern. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Cavern airfield

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Content fork of Aircraft cavern The Banner talk 19:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note nl:Overleg gebruiker:FFA P-16/blockmsg. The Banner talk 19:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep The Cavern Airfield project is an important part of the swiss air force history, the cavern airfield is unique in its kind, and it was important project who paved the way for the later aircraft caverns of the swiss air force. But it should be not confused with the aircraft cavern, it is differend. FFA P-16 (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But its not a dubble text. The cavern airfield was a project, it was not built. In this project the aircrat should start inside the mountain trough a tunnel like runway. the aircraft caverns (the article woh is said as dubble) are built and locatet on diffrend geographical locations. by aircraft caverns the aircrat did not start inside the caverns, the aircraft have to be pullet out by aircraft tugs and have to taxi to the runnway. FFA P-16 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, never built, rejected concept. Edison (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Edison. Only because it was not built it is not non-notable. it paved the way for the aircraft caverns. also if something is/was just a project it is notable enough for wikipedia for eg Porta Alpina. FFA P-16 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing is not useful. Beside that, it seems that Porta Alpina is still an active proposal. The Banner talk 21:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep It's notable for the swiss air force category. Beeing just a project is no argument to delet it. There are hunderts of examples on wikipedia from the project of an soviet nuclerpowerde aircratfcarriert to buildings and aircraft North American XF-108 Rapier. If this one don't can bee keept, then merge it but without loosing informations.FLORAKO (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC) User is a confirmed sock of FFA P-16. Mike V •  Talk  19:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr. Florako, because I do not believe that you are a genuine editor, I have started a sockpuppet investigation against you and mr. FFA P-16: Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16 The Banner talk 10:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@he Banner, well its nothong wrong to ask people (and Friends) for support no mather how well they speak english (also people who are good in english have a lot of knowleg about swiss Military topics).14:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Aircraft cavern. It's a never-realized project for a much bigger version of the same, a Cold War pipe dream. No opinion about whether the project is technically notable, but probably yes, because there is a lot of (print-only) German-language literature about almost every aspect of Swiss military history (spoiler alert: it's mostly about bunkers). However, the article does a poor job of indicating that notability, and really it is not so significant that it can't be covered in a section in an article.  Sandstein   14:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but with four confirmed sockpuppets on the Dutch Wikipedia I get highly suspicious. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@The Banner no problem i can understand this. at nl.wiki they didn't acceptet even such minor changes like update the fleet numbers. a word to the porta alpina, the train tunnel will be go in use that is clear, but the porta alpina project (the underground train station) is dead it would be too expensive to build this after the train tunnel is in use (may i should point this out in the english wiki (in the german it is). I am for keeping this page, but if it ends up with deleting ,i hope some of the informations will be merged with the aircraft cavern article and don't get lost. I usualy work only on pages in relation to the swiss military or swiss aviatic. FFA P-16 (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But I can severely understand that they do difficult over block evasion with IPs and specially created sockpuppets. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is nonsense. We dreamt of such a thing as children. Of course military dreams like children but the planning cannot have been advanced to even a sketch. Author admits, he does not own the reference that possibly mentions this rumour.--Anidaat (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the sources ist quite explicit about the matter, by the way, mentioning: The myth that everyone is guaranteed to hear is that Swiss combat aircraft could take-off directly from the cavern.UNO ZERO ZERO, page 259. Have fun --Anidaat (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete an interesting idea but not of note for a stand-alone article but worth a few words in Aircraft cavern at the most. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Aircraft cavern anything that might be useful. If nothing else, a redirect is warranted here, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that there might be something salvageable in this article that may be of use there.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 14:33, 30 August 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.