Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F/A-18C Mock-up


 * 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 delete. Two things:
 * The English Wikipedia and the German Wikipedia have different ways of doing things. Here, canvassing is considered disruptive behavior and heavily discouraged. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
 * The issue here is notability. Reasonable minds can differ, but having weeded out the arguments that were blatantly not based on policy, the consensus of the participants (as opposed to the amount of words expressed) tilts heavily toward favoring deletion. Kurykh (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

F/A-18C Mock-up

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Training Aids of this type are very common and would not rate mention in an article never mind a stand-alone article, it has zero encyclopedic value. BilCat (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete most airfields/airports have some sort of rescue/fire training rigs/training aids/simulators/old aircraft none of which are notable enough for a stand-alone article or even a mention in the related airfield/airport article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This type of Trainings aids are not com~mon. It is the only training aid documented who is such an exact copy of the real aircraft and has at the same time such diverse trainingsfeatures.. It is much more than just a mocke-up who only look like  the aircraft.  Other Moke-ups  look like the real thing but contain not such featers,  trainingsaids with diverse features  are just trainingsriggs who desent look like  the real thing it can not be commpared with  very basic and simple frirefighting traingsriggs. So such a unique one is notable.FFA P-16 (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The mock-up is a training device as you can find on every airport in the world. The encyclopaedic value is not more than that of a random fire truck of fire extinguisher.  The Banner  talk 19:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, The Banner, you are wrng, it is not the same like te firefighting trainingsrigg you finde nearly on every airport in the world, it is much complexer. Also its not like a random fire truck, it is a very unique trainingsmokeup .. at the moment no other such like this one exist.FFA P-16 (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Run-of-the-mill item found on many military aerodromes, no more notable than an individual firetruck, windsock or dumpster is. - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you have to see that it is not just a look like of an aircraft and it is also not only a trainings rigg. you can finde trainingsrigg and you can finde mockeups on many military  aerdromes, but not  this combination of features.( And even if, then it would be worth to integrate this one on wikipedia).FFA P-16 (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just so you know it is clear from your above post you want this kept, you don't have to jump on everyone who posts a contrary opinion here, as it doesn't contribute to debate. - Ahunt (talk)


 *  Delete Keep. There have been plenty of realistic mock-ups, even grounded airframes, pressed into service as training aids. Sorry, but there is no sign that this article can ever Several sources listed under "External links" verify that it does pass our notability guidelines. They have just been put in the wrong place. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC) [Updated with change of vote 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)]
 * I have now created a Bibliography for them. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep178.238.175.161 (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC) — 178.238.175.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete It's as notable as the dust on my bookshelf. - ZLEA (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It's unique and a very complex system that has nothing to do with those old planes or mock-ups that certain airports use to train their firefighters. --MBurch (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable third-party sources to support your claims, per WP:RS? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, that is a pretty large claim to make, it needs to be backed up with references and not just opinion. - Ahunt (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No,you Steelpillow and Ahunt know it is not possibel to bring references that something in this topic not exist. But iff something simelar (and I talking from simelar features, not just a look-like or a rough training rigg.. I talking from a trainings Mocke-up who excaly look like the real Aircraft and contains diveres trainingsfeatures and simulationsprogramms who can be checked and steered by the instructor in real time. If this exist in on so many airfield you will find easy a lot to show here.This here is not just a basic fire fighting trainingsrigg  it is a complex simulator for diveres situations, it contains features who are also not build into old aircrafthulls who are used fur emercency trainings.  And at least, just if somethinge is so common like a firefighting truck on an airfild it is still wort to be on wikipedia.. wikipeda is not only for extraodonarythings. even this F/A-18C Mocke-up page is online just a few days  i has had  a good bunch of visitors.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RELIABLE are very clear. If there are no reliable sources then it does not belong on Wikipedia. Neither Ahunt nor I nor you can change that: each time one of us edits Wikipedia we agree to its terms of use. Now that you have admitted there are no good sources to be found, there is nothing more to be said here. If you wish to write about things outside Wikipedia's policies, there are plenty more web sites out there for you to use, that may well be your best option. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. But in an articel about the F/A-18C Mocke-up have to be sources about the F/A-18C Mock-up (and they are all in the Aricel) and not sources about non existing Mock-ups with simear features. How should it be possibel to bring a referenc about something who did not exist? It is the other way much easier, if something simelar exist  it could be proven witout a problem. And we have here on wikipedia  a lot of articels about vehicels who where build in just one or two examples, just because  such Mock-ups are less known or usualy not in the focus by the friends of aviation makes them not somthine who readers of wikipeda should not knew about. The Article fit perfect to the therms of wiikipedia because in german wikipedia it is even more detailed.FFA P-16 (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What??? Nobody is asking for sources about insignificant mock-ups. The burden is on you to show that this one is notable. None that you have cited are reliable sources to its notability. The German article you mention is little different, even down to the sources cited. Maybe that needs deleting as well. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of reliable references and external links in the articel already who show that it is notable. What is the problem with them? We have something from 20 Minuten, Blickand Tagesanzeiger. Thes some of the biggest newspaper and online news of switzerland, we have the aviatic Magazin of switzerland& Austria Cockpit, we hav a official Air force webpage about it, we have a branch report about the manufacturer in a non-aviatic branch magazin, we have  a printet Magazin as referenc.. just to name a few all in this articel.. so much and it is not enough? In the one in the german wkipedia was clearly defined as worthwhile, as notable.It was very clearly decided NOT to delet it!FFA P-16 (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Aha! I found them in the wrong place, under "external links", no wonder we all missed them. It just needs tidying up. Yes, there seems to be enough independent commentary to establish notability after all, so I am changing my vote accordingly. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They do prove it exists but it really isnt notable even in the simulation world. MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTABILITY requires only that something be adequately commented on in RS, it does not require professional endorsement (for example whether the subject is "unique" or "complex" is not relevant). A good few specialist journals have carried articles and news reports on this subject, i.e. it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is the core of WP:GNG. Sources which I have so far checked to confirm they carry non-trivial content include Cockpit, Seilbahnen International, AirOnline.nl and the Swiss Department of Defense web site. How many more do you want to be verified before you will accept it? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep.The german one was nominated as "very readable article".And the english one should be thrown down the drain...,seriously?178.197.234.124 (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC) — 178.197.234.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I understand the comment was made in a deletion discussion so hardly "nominated". MilborneOne (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, failing a reason why why die Berne Zeitung or Blick should not be considered reliable sources for notability. (For those who cannot read German, "Nachbildung" = "replica" in the first article, "Denn es ist aus Holz" = "because it is made of wood" in the second, so it is indeed about the replica and not the original aircraft.) Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that they aren't reliable - but they do not constitute "in-depth coverage". YSSYguy (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I added "for notability". Answering below, to avoid fragmenting the discussion. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - no clue why this article should be deleted. There are maybe some (minor!) points regarding the translation from de to de. But this is more a quality-problem than a question about "keep it or not". --M1712 (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC) — M1712 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

FYI: I have filed a sockpuppet investigation as I do not believe that all keep-voters are genuine editors. See: Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16. The Banner talk 00:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep while the sockpuppetry issue needs to be explored, I'm satisfied it meets GNG. The Berne Zeitung and Blick articles mentioned above would constitute significant coverage as does this, to cite a third. We do have articles on Category:Individual aircraft, indeed, all kinds of Category:Individual physical objects. There's no reason that mockups can't be notable if they get sufficient coverage -- which this has, if perhaps barely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Those three are nowhere near being "significant coverage", they are sets of photos with a bit of text serving as captions. The significant coverage is not independent, being from the Swiss military and a press release and brochure from the manufacturer; the independent coverage, while reliable, is not significant. Much of the material in the article is unreferenced and most likely pulled out of the creator's head as original research (for which he has a long track record) and it is all dressed up to appear greater than the sum of its parts. So for the record, my !vote is to delete. YSSYguy (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Seilbahn international and Cockpit are Independent and reliable sources providing enough detailed informations. Blick, 20Miunten Tagesanzeiger Prove the great public perception (this are the biggest newspapers in Switzerland and the two biggest newsportals in Switzerland. Also the berner Zeitung is an  and reliable sources providing enough detailed informations. We have here a good mix of first hand informations from the air Force and from the manufacturer  as well as enough independent ones online.. and don't forget the printet ones, first hand and  independent,  like Schweizer Luftwaffe Jahrespublikation 2017 Die "Manipulier"- Hornet (S.60 - 63.)  AeroRevue, 7/8 2016, Page 8. al of them bring in also enough details who are needed.FFA P-16 (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't hold much store by the "look at the big thing in the road" trivia, no matter who publishes it. But the article also cites some much stronger sources, which I and FFA P-16 have both pointed out above here and which do constitute "significant coverage". Unfortunately, although the Cockpit download page] links to the cited issue, the download link appears to have failed since I read it a couple of days ago and I did not keep a copy. If anybody has any luck again, do let us know. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I drop in here Steelpillow, if I click on the link I can still reach it (limitation for foreigen IP'? I don't knew).FFA P-16 (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Not significant coverage" does not logically follows from sets of photos with a bit of text serving as captions - I would consider e.g. that making the cover of National Geographic (magazine) constitutes significant coverage even in the absence of accompanying text. Moreover, even if it could be argued against the Blick and Tagesanzeiger pieces (I have seen worse pass at AfD, but a reversal would please me), that is not the case of the Berne Zeitung one. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, YSSYguy makes a valid point about routine coverage, or as Steelpillow calls it, '"look at the big thing in the road" trivia' -- strikethrough my !vote. Change to neutral. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If this was about something that appeared on the cover of National Geographic I would say "keep" myself. But it didn't. The coverage is confined to Switzerland, it is local coverage, not widespread. The independent coverage is of a similar level to that generated in Australia when the RAAF's General Dynamics F-111s were retired and some were trucked to museums around the country, or when a de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou was moved by truck to a museum. The coverage amounts to less than what would appear in Australian media when a child drowns in a backyard swimming pool, or when there is a fatal car crash; and is a lot less than what would appear in Australian media after a fatal light aircraft crash - none of these would generate an article and nobody would think that they should. So why should something that has generated no attention outside Switzerland have a Wikipedia article in English about it, especially when there was a debate over whether the article should exist in one of Switzerland's official languages? Why should the Swiss military be covered in more detail than just about any other country's military forces, several of whom have similar mockups and training devices? YSSYguy (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You really don't get it., if you compare this with a retired F-111. it is something differend. So you wan't to bann swiss topics from English Wikipedia,or how should we understand this' Wikipedia is not limited to countrys or language. I told you a few times already.. the English language Wikipedia is used by many readers  too look up something who is not covered in the wiki of their language. (lets say a Russian friend  who doesn't understand german wan't to knew about this F/A-18c Mock-up, will read it here because he don't understand german and in the Russian Wikipedia is nothing about it)."Why should the Swiss military be covered in more detail than just about any other country's military forces" is the wrong argument. If there are less informations about other military forces  we don't have to restrict the informations about the swiss military... more all wikipedians should be encouraged to let grow the informations about other country's military forces. But you can not burden this on my shoulders to build up more infos about other country's military forces. And no  there is no indication that other military forces have similar mockups, like we said here also a few times it is very complex system that has nothing to do with those old planes or mock-ups that certain airports use to train their firefighters. And just for the record the Discussion  about it in de Wikipedia was started by a few anonym IP's. the main discussion was not if its notable or not, the main-discussion was  what title/name it should have. It unfortunately makes the appearance that you not are against the article  because the content, but because it is from me.FFA P-16 (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your continuing claims of prejudice against Swiss topics and (elsewhere) "rassistic" - although I fail to see how a person of European descent can be racist against a European person - when people question 'your' articles are getting very tiresome, and you have misunderstood what I wrote. I am not comparing the mockup to an F-111 museum aircraft, I am comparing the coverage the moving of the F-111s by road received to the coverage the moving of the mockup by road received. At no time have I made any comparison of firefighting training aids to this mockup either, I am comparing this mockup to technical training aids, cockpit procedures trainers, engineering mockups etc., which are very commonplace. Why would anyone from Russia or Japan or wherever search for information about this mockup? Nobody outside Switzerland knows it even exists, because there has been no coverage outside Switzerland. I am not making any judgments of this article based on you being its creator or of its quality - you will notice that I have not entered the debate over the Air14 article you created, even though its quality is just as bad as the one we are discussing here; you know why? Because your bad English is not a reason to delete an article you created and can be fixed by other editors. My assessment of this article is based purely on the notability of the subject, which the subject does not possess. YSSYguy (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You have wanted to limit the informations about the swiss military in English Wikipedia just in your comment above. I do not comment the other things now because we should stay straight to this why this article is to keep. Like you said bad English can be fixed by other editors. Therefore I would like to say thank you Steelpillow,Shawn in Montreal and Petebutt for your work. That it is notable is well documented how often have we to tell you it? Jahrespublikation der Luftwaffe, who everyone can buy at the newsstand or order. The 2 biggest online news portals of Switzerland the biggest printet newspapers in Switzerland. Seilbahnen International, AeroRevue and Cockpit are not limited to Switzerland only they are also available in Austria, Germany, Lichtenstein. This 100% prof that it is notable.  Why would anyone from Russia or wherever search for information about this mockup' well because  there are a lot of people outside of Switzerland who are interested in swiss military stuff, history equipment and so one. I have friends in Russia, Hungary, Italy and so one who doesn't speak german but are interested  in such things. I am swiss but I am also interested in Russian airplanes and military equipment. in the Tankmuseum in Kubinka  everything was written only in Russian not in English or german, so I used the English wikipeda to get some infos. Also you forgot that the F/A-18C Mock-up was shown to  many vistors (also a lot of foreigen vistors (even guests from the USA) at the 75 years Meiringen Air Force Base show. Wikipedia is not limited to a language or anation, it is not a reason for deletion if the article is about something  who is just part of a nation who has not English as it official language. And foreigen people noticed it :UK& NL .FFA P-16 (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * When you reconsidered your vote, did you also take into account the more significant coverage in RS that I had mentioned earlier, before my "big thing" remark? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Just for information: there was in de:wp in August 2016 a longer discussion about this topic. Determinend by administrative decision to keep. I know, this is not binding for other wiki-language-versions. Some arguments to delete the article in en:wp are similar, also some pro-arguments. I think, there are still some strong arguments to keep this article also in en:wp:
 * media coverage was/is given and referenced
 * originality issues of this mock-up are mentioned/described and 2nd-party referenced in the article

...and, as I understand the AfD-rules in en:wp correct, there is no reason stated to delete an article lack of "bad english" or "insufficient references". It is - in my opinion - more a question of quality-improvement (i.e. language, grammar a.s.o.) - and not deleting articles as "first action". (sorry for my clumsy english) --M1712 (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As you said, de-wp conclusions are not binding here. In that particular case, while I did not read the whole thing (my reading speed in German is 1/4 of that in English, at best, and that was a wall of text), I see no discussion whatsoever of the sources (which is the point of contention here at en-wp); most of the posts are either back-and-forth abuse or a debate between "it's useful, only deletionists would want to delete it" vs. "it's a mess, so it should go".
 * Moreover, and on a more formal point, MBurch and FFA-P16 commented on that discussion; I would object to a "double-counting" of their arguments (not implying it is the intent here). Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The   aviation   user . Zurich00swiss (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? YSSYguy (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to an appropriate article, e.g. List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force. I was prepared to close this as "delete", but... well. The various argument-less "keep" votes can be safely ignored. The issue is whether there is sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The local news coverage of "oh look, cool, big thing moving on the highway" is so superficial that it can't be used as a basis for notability. The manufacturer's and the air force's material is not independent. But, surprisingly, there are two in-depth articles in trade journals about this specific mockup: Seilbahnen International p. 106 and Cockpit, p. 16. That's technically enough for an article, but the reality is that this individual piece of training equipment is such an insignificant part of the whole topic of the Swiss Air Force that to dedicate a whole article to it must look quite silly to readers, particularly when we don't even have an article about the service of the real F-/A 18 with the Swiss Air Force, about which there would be much more important things to relate (various crashes, procurement issues, politics, etc.) It should therefore be mentioned in an amount of detail proportionate to its significance in another article. (Conflict of interest notice: I have served as an officer in the Swiss armed forces.)   Sandstein   08:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As info about the situation who led to this (soon two) F/A-18C Mock-up. The Swiss Air Force purchased 34 F/A-18, first it was planned to buy a second batch of 34 F/A-18, but this was never done. Also the idea to buy 12 F/A-18 more to replace the 12 Mirage IIIRS was not made. So the Swiss air Force was using 34 F/A-18 without having a QRA. The Swiss Air Force lost 4 F/A-18.. from the remaing 30 F/A-18 a minimum of 2 F/A-18 are since 2016 reserved for the QRA. So the F/A-18C Mock-up is an important tool part to ensuring the F/A-18 fleets readiness. Just because certain topics (for eg. Crash) are not (yet) listed in articles about the Swiss Air Force is no reason to prevent this article. No, every "keep" and every "delet" count.. some of the delet also have no substantiated reasons. so we should not change the rules for the Vote Counter. The BAZ  Is also a good  independent source. FFA P-16 (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You have again not understand (or more you are not willing to understands it) The fleet readiness is just one point, and an answer to the question why this F/A-18C-Mock-up is as article in Wikipedia and we don't have a list of all air crashes of the swiss air force. No it is definitive not the same as a common firefighting trainingsrigg, also it is not just a nonfunctional Mock-up, all the things you count here are not the same. No there is no such a complex Mock-up in service by USAF, the RAF, the RAAF, the Armée de l'air, the JASDF or other air arms. If there is one we can  bring it to Wikipedia too, but this doesn't necessitate the deletion of this article. Again you are starting to agitate against Swiss Military topics, there is no limitation on Wikipedia about vehicels from one countrys orgine.  If there are a few from Switzerland, everyone in the whole world can write about others from other nations. It is not important for Wikipedia if something is build in 10,000 copies or just 1 or even never was build Rockwell X-30. The sentence with a pen shows that it is not at all about the content, but you want to delete the article only because it is from me. BTW:Pen is also on wikipedia.FFA P-16 (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merging into an article on either the manufacturer or the Swiss F/A-18s might be a good option if one of those articles existed. I cannot see any other article that would benefit from receiving this content. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep F/A-18C Mock-up in my opinion is an interesting object and I ask not do delete. -- Spurzem (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Spurzem (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it is interesting, but being interesting does not make it notable. A steel training aid was manufactured for Sydney Airport; it replicated part of the fuselage and left wing of an Airbus A380 and was on a wheeled trolley. It would be towed into position at a gate at the international terminal that had two aerobridges to handle an A380, to allow people working at the terminal to practice docking aerobridges to the lower and upper decks. That was also interesting and that was also an important tool for the airport's readiness to bring the A380 into service. YSSYguy (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That it is notable is already proved, how many times we have to tell you ., Cockpit, May 2013, Page 16., Seilbahnen International 3 June 2013, pp. 106–7. and so one? Like you say the "A380" you talk about is only  part of the fuselage and left wing.  we but we talk her about an full Mock-up with diffrend configurations and and a wide rang of functions. Also you are absolutely free to write about this  "A380" on Wikipedia. I don't see any reason why you have to jump on everyone who vote keep. FFA P-16 (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not free to write about the A380 training aid on Wikipedia, it isn't notable. And I don't see any reason why you have to make unfounded accusations of prejudice against Switzerland or your self every time somebody writes something you don't like. YSSYguy (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are free to write about the A380 training aid, if you think it isn't notable it is your decision, I never had, have and will put any stones in your way if you write an articel. If you an article about the A380 training aid would be not notable, it does not mean automatically that this is here the case too. Well you wrote it above, you criticzie that there are to much articels about swiss military topics. And this is not the first time you do this.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * So this is a training aid that is an important tool to aid in the fleet's readiness. How is that any different to all of the mockups, flight simulators, technical procedures trainers, maintenance training fixtures, computer-based training modules and other training aids used by the USAF, the RAF, the RAAF, the Armée de l'air, the JASDF or other air arms or the world's airlines or the world's airports or by any company anywhere in the world that uses training aids...the pen I have in my pocket when I am at work is an important tool, I use it to sign paperwork to ensure the readiness of aircraft for service. Again and again you argue that somewhow everything related to the Swiss military is special. There are five articles on Wikipedia about specific aircraft tugs; two of them are about Swiss Air Force aircraft tugs. Wikipedia has six articles dealing with one Swiss tank and its various conversions for anti-aircraft, vehicle recovery, bridging etc. with a total production of 390 units; because according to you it has equal weight in the world as the M48 Patton with a production total of more than ten thousand and about which many books have been written. This not a vote count, so no, opinions with no reasons given do not actually matter. YSSYguy (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So because you moved your commend I answer it here again::*You have again not understand (or more you are not willing to understands it) The fleet readiness is just one point, and an answer to the question why this F/A-18C-Mock-up is as article in Wikipedia and we don't have a list of all air crashes of the swiss air force. No it is definitive not the same as a common firefighting trainingsrigg, also it is not just a nonfunctional Mock-up, all the things you count here are not the same. No there is no such a complex Mock-up in service by USAF, the RAF, the RAAF, the Armée de l'air, the JASDF or other air arms. If there is one we can bring it to Wikipedia too, but this doesn't necessitate the deletion of this article. Again you are starting to agitate against Swiss Military topics, there is no limitation on Wikipedia about vehicels from one countrys orgine. If there are a few from Switzerland, everyone in the whole world can write about others from other nations. It is not important for Wikipedia if something is build in 10,000 copies or just 1 or even never was build Rockwell X-30. The sentence with a pen shows that it is not at all about the content, but you want to delete the article only because it is from me. BTW:Pen is also on wikipedia.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Some information from Switzerland: The team in the sockpuppet-discussion has an tendency of using rules as a weapon against others – and forget them if it suits them fine. So there ist one thing to say about „coverage”. Firstly I don’t know if you understand Leserreporter as there is no corresponding article on enWiki. Leserreporter is mostly or only photos being sent to the press and them writing a few sentences. (user generated content) This is the case here for Tagesanzeiger, Blick and 20Minuten.

Now listen to MBurch additionally (never mind the difference- they have both spoken as "us" before of each other (just read all the links in the sockpuppet investigation): How about Blick:
 * "20 Minuten als Boulevardzeitung schon mal entfernt, völlig ungeeignet für eine Enzyklopädie --MBurch (Diskussion) 04:17, 30. Aug. 2014 (CEST)" (not suitable)
 * irony; "damit die internationale Medienpräsenz noch ein wenig grösser wird, muss jetzt auch noch das topseriöse 20 Minuten herhalten? Löschen! --MBurch (Diskussion) 22:35, 26. Aug" (reason for deletion)
 * "Blick als Quelle für eine Enzyklopädie geht gar nicht. MBurch (Diskussion) 17:49, 11. Apr. 2015 (CEST)" (not suitable)
 * "… muss durch eine andere Quelle als den Blick belegt werden. --MBurch (Diskussion) 19:21, 11. Apr. 2015 (CEST)" (not suitable)
 * "und das ohne Blick als Quelle MBurch (Diskussion) 07:03, 21. Jul. 2015 (CEST)" (not suitable)
 * "Blick als Quelle entfernt (Boulevardmedium als Quellen geht gar nicht), MBurch (Diskussion) 06:50, 3. Aug. 2015 (CEST)"(not suitable, not discussion but removed content)

Within Switzerland remains therefore So please erase all rerferences except Berner Zeitung, simagazin.com and Cockpit, as all the rest does not cover the subject as a subject. These three may remain with the Swiss Army communication. (not to mention the striking dutch webpage which is listed under „Bibliography")
 * Berner Zeitung (not really national) (article on invitation of the manufacturer but for me perfectly ok as regional news)
 * Cockpit national range for specific audience
 * Seilbahn national but specific range

Btw: Regarding this a votation, FFA is collecting users on deWP, eg spurzem. No worry, I won't do the same.

You decide yourself if you like the article. But if it comes to the "significant coverage" – you may have to forget it especially if you look for "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" as it says....--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:69CE:EB50:3352:79A8 (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To establish notability of the subject, reliable sources do not need to cover the subject as a subject, they merely needs to comprise a significant body of content on the subject. The sources you list are not the only ones which do that. Then, other sources with less information may also be cited for additional information about a subject that is already notable. These also should not be deleted. Perhaps other language wikis do it differently, but this is what the English wikipedia does. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fernrohr /Cronista IP, Sorry but 20Minutes and Blick are may not the best references but they are still good. And even without it, it does not matter if the Berner Zeitung is not a National or international Newspaper. With Seilbahn International and Cockpit we have it on the safe side. Even "first Hand" infos are regarded on englishwikipedia  as notthe best sources, they are still usefull for the technical details.. and we have seen that it is also niticed outside switzerland. So thank you if you stop your war against MBurch.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a war against the two users mentioned but a user that feels being attacked because of his edits being critisized.--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:7:7BE3:5233:15CA (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 13:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we really need any more "substantive debate"? The issue appears to hinge on whether the cited sources demonstrate notability, and I don't see anything new to be said there unless new sources are found. Personally, I'd suggest that a "no consensus" closure would be acceptable by now. (The ongoing sockpuppet head count is not relevant to that.) &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * delete Not relevant (besides that, FFA tries to get dewp-users to vote keep although they don't might have a substantiated opinion: link --79.249.168.132 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * — 79.249.168.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry Fernrhor / Cronista IP, buthere is not the place your hunt against MBurch (and aganst me since i prevented that you deleted the writen by MBurch). Thank you.  No it is relevant, so still "Keep", steelpillow brought it clearly down to the point.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, just not notable as a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It can be changed so that it is no more a standing alone article, it can be linked with the Swiss Air Force page, the Inventorypage of the Swiss Air Force, and (Because of the X-5098) with the Payerne AFB.  That it is notable is proved by the 20Minuten, Blick, Seilbahn International, Cockpit, Bernerzeitung Swiss Air Force Homepage and so on. FFA P-16 (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Info :IP 79.249.168.132 is now blocked on german wikipedia because of editwar
 * ( yes, 79.249 (not me) was angry for FFA P-16 asking people explicitly to vote even if they hadn't a reason ). Read also FFA P-16's first of this even repeaded request with his explanation there about "deletion fanatics" and the "two types" that he claims "give him a hard time". Don't follow this litany: On deWiki kind of a standard with FFA P-16 to present himself as a victim of IP's and "bad intention users" instead of sticking to the facts and/or the state/deficiencies of the article discussed.--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:7:7BE3:5233:15CA (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * continued as predicted: My edit was correct for Wikipedia and a clear improvement of the article as the article now reverted in the version of FFA P-16 doesn't even mention the month it took place(!) (giving false impression as "mid-2014" would be July, not September). This is instantly and exactly fulfilling my prediction of being easily offended instead of improving an article. --2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:59C7:2F41:438D:9C80 (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * @2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:59C7:2F41:438D:9C80 it is well known that Fernrohr is using differend Ip's and is hunting me and MBurch. from time to time he start todo a few usefull edits. This debat here is not about the Air14. But to get it clear I haven't changed it tomid-2014 this was a other user, and only September is also not right..it was august&September. Also even if you and the Banner don't like it  Blick is one of the two importantest newsportals in Switzerland (and now I add 2 other interpendend refs). So lets Stay to the F/A-18C Mock-up. And here we have given enough references  that it is notable. BTW If you log in  it is easyser to communicate with you and it is much easyser to see that you are doing important things for Wikipedia.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I do: where you wrote an essay about your own knowledge instead of looking for facts I corrected the worst false claims such as the first big show being held in 1994 where there was the first in 1991 and so on.--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:A9B8:2188:8885:E007 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ho IP 2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:A9B8:2188:8885:E007 First.This here is about the F/A-18C Mock-up not about the Air14. Second you are Mixing up things like you did before. You bring in much smaller airshows organized by civilans and shows from the military with just one foreigen team or a few foreigen aircraft, they are all not the same like the big amount of foreigen Teams and aircraft on the Air94, air04 and definitive  not matching the Air14.FFA P-16 (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of that material might be salvageable to be used as an example in Aircraft fire trainer, which is pretty weak. ApLundell (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Here is another source: Thomas Feuz; "Die Flugzeugbauer aus Seftigen" (The aircraft maker from Seftigen), Gantrichspost, Herbst 2016, p.13.. Says (in German) that it is unique and has gained international recognition.. This would seem to boost its notability and weaken several of the "delete" rationales given to date. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * note comment below for Gantrischpost...--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:A9B8:2188:8885:E007 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It is the canvassing for editors on the German Wikipedia to protect this article that weakens the keep-votes, especially from German colleagues. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The AfD closer is expected to make their assessment based on the quality of arguments presented, not on their quantity. Canvassing is a behavioural issue not a quality issue. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Since none bothered to do so, I warned FFA P-16 for canvassing, to which they answered that they were unaware of that rule. I could not confirm or infirm their claim that canvassing is forbidden on de-wp, so I would WP:AGF that this was indeed a good-faith mistake. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 17:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Knew that firsthand references and youtube are not seen as legitim sources in English Wikipedia. But to show in this discussion that the F/A-18c Mock-up is noticed by  many people just for information: It was presentet to 30000 Vistors  at the "75 Jahre Militärflugplatz Meiringen" airshow, at the Trainings day on Friday and the two show days at the weekend (see clip from 4:45 to 7:02) .. Even Russians know it now .FFA P-16 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Great example; Ok, it is a bit better than this, that mentioned Gantrischpost. "This would seem to boost its notability" - great sentence, great argument! But: Such a local promotional letter for the region, distributed for free - four times a year - this is a suitable source to claim international recognition (which it even doesn't because the claim is made by the builder)?--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:A9B8:2188:8885:E007 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point about the international claim. Note that I carefully avoided saying it "established" notability, but it's still another drop in the bucket and strengthens the sources which I have already suggested do establish notability. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally spoken; NOT convincing tactics to spread sources twice as reference and bibliography - and those references that I mentioned (1,4,5,6,7,10,11) are really worse than just poor, just as the dutch bibliography entry.--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:A9B8:2188:8885:E007 (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2017 (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.