Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display


 * 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. Even though the Keeps were in the minority, I looked at the keep arguments to see if there was some strong policy-based argument which might overcome the raw numbers. Unfortunately, they were more this is important than here's the references to support WP:N, so closing this as a clear delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Single aircraft used for military displays are raarely notable and not that uncommon. Most air forces have at least one solo display team that appear at air shows and displays and like the other solo aircraft I cant see this one being notable MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks FFA P-16 (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Please have a look at the Swiss Air Force Page about the F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display
 * Keep I am against the deletion of this page, because the Hornet display is seen by the Swiss air force as equal team like the PC-7Tam or the Patrouille suisse. The Hornet Team is since 1997 a official display team of the swiss air Force an is displaying a  aerobatic programm inside and outside switzerland at many events.If it doesent fit to the aerobatic teams its still no need to delet it it fit still in the category "swiss air force". Please have a look at the official swiss air force page (or just google it9 to see that it is an important part of the swiss air force. Please see  also some of my arguments  for the same at the deletion discusion of the "Super Puma Display Team

Programm ( http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/aktuell/airshows.html

This are my points against deleting it.

On the other hand i like to rise the question: If single aircraft used for military displays dosent fit into the category Aerobatic teams, would it not bee good to create a category for them? ther are quite a few single aircraft "Teams" who are since years part of airshows (Ramex Delta (2 French M2000), Solo Türk (F-16) ,Belgian Air Component F-16 Solo Display Team, Rafale solo Display Team   HAF Demo Team   and so one. FFA P-16 (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:N, no third party refs. - Ahunt (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. As with any other subject, notability is determined by in-depth coverage of the subject matter in third-party published reliable sources. I can see no evidence of such coverage in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

FLORAKO (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Well enough and important enough to stay in the Category Swiss Air Force.

Have add 3-party ref  FFA P-16 (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC) *Keep@Bejnar. But had you seen that this with theclock is not just some page, its from the Aero Club  switzerland. the organisation for all interests of aviatic (civil &military) of switzerland. one is the homepage of fightersqad17 (its run by members of Sq17, not just by some fans). The page of herman keist is seen as valid source about swiss air force topics in diverse wikipedias in differend languages. And here one more FFA P-16 (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete advertisements for clocks while independent of the team, are not usually considered to be reliable sources, nor is a fan page. --Bejnar (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * While Afd is not a vote, but is instead based on reasoned discussion, it is nonetheless considered inappropriate to bold more than one resolution per username. Hence, I have stricken FFA P-16's second keep entry. --Bejnar (talk) 15:02, 13 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.


 * while it did not affect the outcome of the discussion, it should be noted that FLORAKO is confirmed sock of FFA P-16. Mike V  •  Talk  19:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)