Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SRF Airspace monitoring and management system


 * 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. with no comment on any possible merge. SpinningSpark 12:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

SRF Airspace monitoring and management system

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 18:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * KEEP It was the first Air Sureilane system of the Swiss Air Force after WW2, at his time it was one of the modernst systems. It is mentoned in books and also in the swiss Air force Museum.  "Fail WP GNG " is just to cover up the hunt from The Banner against Swiss Military topics  i worked on.FFA P-16 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that your continuous string of personal attacks is completely useless as the subjects are judged on their merits and not on your roaring! The Banner talk 19:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The long list of deletion Nominations from you against articels I had writen or worked on shows that YOU continuous missuse AfD. It is important that people know aboud this!FFA P-16 (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The number of articles deleted shows otherwise. Please stop your personal attacks. The Banner talk 20:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No the number of from you nominated articels i had written (especaly about the Divison General) shows exactly that it is not about GNG and raves a clear picture that you use AfD's as personal attacks. So topi it Now! Very interesting is that  ther is now a long line of AfD s from you against articels from me..it is no coincidence that you now drag FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system and SRF Airspace monitoring and management systemto AfD  after they exist already 4 years with "Fail WP GNG" at the same time put no other radar system who was not written from me in question (like Austrian air defense or French air defence radar systems) who's WP GNG  is even weaker.FFA P-16 (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge - to Swiss_Air_Force or similar location (related to history of Swiss air defences). This is notable as the first system in use - but unless I'm missing something, unlike the concurrent FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system AfD (where I voted Keep) which is actually a complex tailor made system, in this case we are talking about the deployment of 4 purchased Thompson ER-200 S-band radars and not an actual system beyond this. The article is well written, sourcing is a bit scant (but does exist - it doesn't fail on lack of sources), but I'm not sure this should stand as a stand-alone article and not as a section titled "early air defense systems" or something similar in the relevant force.Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Or alternatively merge to FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system as a description of the previous system. I think the content here is good - just not standalone - don't have a strong opinion on where to merge to.Icewhiz (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not offering an opinion as to the notability of the subject at this time - I will do so when I have looked at it more thoroughly - but it appears to me that the text might be a copyright violation from somewhere else, as there aren't enough mistakes for the text to be the original work of the article's creator FFA P-16. YSSYguy (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's unkind. Note Earwig's copyvio tool doesn't show anything clearly obvious -, and the article itself (as per its history) had undergone some copy-editing.Icewhiz (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked carefully at the history before making the above comment and the copyediting was not so extensive as to account for the difference between what FFA has typed in the article and the gibberish he has posted here - perhaps he copied the text from a book or from a placard in the museum. YSSYguy (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system (as the successor). The latter article seems to be heading towards a "Keep". Can be briefly mentioned there, while anything useful can be picked up from the article history. Otherwise, this is right now an unsourced original research / WP:MANUAL. There's very little encyclopedic prose in it right now. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * REname and repurpose as History of Swiss Air Defence. This article will make one section.  The FLORIDA system (some one's merge target) will make another.  For all I know there may be an intervening one.  These will together make a main article for Swiss_Air_Force.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete due to a lack of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. FFA touts the book about the centenary of the Swiss Air Force, but when he added the book to the article as a 'reference' he added absolutely no text, which indicates that - even though he is fighting for the life of the article - it doesn't have anything to add to what is already in it; said text boiling down to "Swiss Air Force wanted radar, did some testing, and bought some units off-the-shelf". YSSYguy (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You asked for more references.. I brougth 1 more references for the text who is already writen.. so with just a other referencs for the already existing is no need to rewrite the text.FFA P-16 (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't ask for anything, but thanks for reinforcing my point that the book does not help to establish notability because there isn't anything in it that isn't already in the article. YSSYguy (talk) 08:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, ther is no rule in Wikipedia that if you bring in tow differend Books as referenc about one topic that this two books must contain differend informations.. Also if the second one doesn't bring something new it is a referenc of GNG. Also you can not buy an airspace monitoring and management system for a topogarphie like in Switzerland  " off-the-shelf".. definitive  also not in 1952. Also this is now an old trick from you putting references in question.. Last time  by the Bucher aircraft tug, you told me  you will accept  the ref I add and change your delet into keep if I bring in new informations  in the article from the new source... I had brought in this new Infos (Transportation of  the Bucher aircraft tug and its use at ad -hoc highway strips).. But you had not changed your vote.... Notability  doesent is to have differend informations in differend books.. the same informations in differend books  is also prove of  notability.FFA P-16 (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What you keep demonstrating in all of these different AfD discussions, is that you do not understand what Wikipedia's notability requirements are. It does not matter if this radar system is discussed in 300 books, if all of them have only the same one or two sentences of information. Having 300 books mentioning the subject satisfies the requirement for widespread coverage, but not the requirement for significant coverage if all of them have only the same one or two sentences of information. You do not do yourself any favours in the way you add material to articles either. As I and others have pointed out to you many times, you need to reference properly - just tacking on a list at the bottom of the article is not a satisfactory way to reference the information in the article. Let us say for the sake of argument that the book by Wüst has ten pages of coverage of the SRF radar - or is it SFR, as both are used in the article. I would expect to see in the list of references which information is on each of those ten pages. You often don't (or can't) do that when you add sources to articles and I can't 'take your word for it' as to how much is referenced from where because you have a track record of adding information to articles derived from "what you know to be true" and then claiming notability - for example you created the 'article' Swiss Military Tarpaulins and argued that it should be kept . YSSYguy (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry it is already straing to put the notability of an nationalwide Air surveillance system in the center of Europe douring the cold war in question. Profe of notabiliety is given in the Museum and the Books. Jou just come around with something new  just because you wan't it deleted. The Refernces ar given. Ther is no need to copy the book as referene page by page. Also  again, last time  when I add he book at the bucher Aircraft tug  you played the same game,  first discredit the book, then you said you will change your delet to keep if I build in more infos from the book into the text.. I had done this but you broke your promise! So if I add her references which information is on each of those ten pages. what will happened then?  I can't 'take your word for it' too. It is easy to deny all references if you want to delete an article. of cors I wote keep  for the Swiss Military Tarpaulins. Whatz are you expecting? that someone write an arrticel to vote for delet? also it meet's the criterias for german Wikipedia,  voting for deletion  and nominating something for deletion is not much work and very easy.. bring in references, writing about it is much more work.. and I have no time in the next week to serv you everything on the silver tablet.FFA P-16 (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For your info: this is the English-language Wikipedia, so you have to adhere to the rules and regulation valid on this project. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Here some online, with them GNG is given:
 * SFR ER220 in "Militärische Dänkmäler im Bereich Luftwaffe".  Page 13 &14
 * " Zur Geschichte der Radarüberwachung in der Schweiz" 16. januar 2017 de:Walter Dürig (Offizier) Pages 2-5
 * "Gespräch mit Alfons Haltmeier" 13.september 2013  Walter Dürig  Picture of the System on Mount Pilatus (LO) on Page 6
 * Einsatzzentralen der Luftwaffe  23.Juni 2015 Oberst (aD) Rudolf Wiki, Hinwil  Page 27-30
 * FFA P-16 - I'm not contesting there is source material here. But why not merge to project FLORIDA and/or to history of Swiss air defenses? Why should this be a standalone article?Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because This one, the FLORIDA and now the FLORAKO are 3 differend air surveilance systems from differend manufacturer and from differend times.. Merge them would be like (I knew its an extrem example) Merge Dassault Mystère with F-101 and F-16.FFA P-16 (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * FLORIDA & FLORAKO clearly are elaborate custom made systems - deserving of a separate article. However the SRF system - from what I understand from the article - is 4 off the shelf Thompson ER-200 radars - with little C4ISTAR beyond this. Why would one characterize this a system?Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well merging would squees it into a part who is (at the moment) only a short statement about the today system. Yes the Finland Air defense also had Thompson Er-200 radars.. But you can not just buy 4 off the shelf radars and put them in an mountain georaphie.. you have to customize them. Also the page 27-30 Air defense and directions center in Mount Brünig made it to an forrunner system of the FLORIDA. But if you think tis is not important enoug..i prefere the merge than the loss of the informations.FFA P-16 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Afraid my German isn't good enough to really understand the sources (I can make out every second or third word in German - so I can tell what this is about, but not enough to really understand). I think the content itself in the article is good (proofing issues aside). For me it is a question of whether this is a system, or "History of Swiss Air defense". If the article were to assert the customization of the system (e.g. - how the four ER-220 (or 200?) radars were integrated via C3) - then I would perhaps see this is a system. Mountains and echoes are an issue for any radar deployment - requires calibration, and with large obstructions - require multiple sites for full coverage (of obscured zones from one radar) - however does this make a system? What integrated these radars? A common command post with telephone lines from the operators in each site - or something more elaborate? Was a "common air picture" constructed (either electronically or even manually via sandbox with humans managing the tracks and integration)? This is what is missing for me - when I read the article I see some history, some descriptions of problems and issues - and then a system description that consists of 4 fixed radars + 1 mobile one (some of the sources you pointed out seem to refer to 5 mobile units in addition to the fixed - but I might not understand this) - with no description of a C&C function. Was this system static in configuration? Or did the composition of radars change throughout the life (until FLORIDA)? From my knowledge of non-Swiss forces, this can be quite fluid (so and so radars in stock - particularly mobile or semi-mobile ones - deployed ad-hoc as per inventory in various locations) and vary from one year to the next.Icewhiz (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a pity that this infos are only in german. Unfortunatly I don't have much time now, and probabl not beeing able to work on wiipedia the next 5 days. So onl a short answer. In is written that they build the Underground EZ-KP in Mount Brünig for this system (Pic on page 30) In this documend the write that ther weher 4 fixed Radarsites on the Mountains (Pic on page 28), a fixed testside  at Bütschelegg and a Fixed trainingside at Dübendorf.FFA P-16 (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To assert significance of this as a system - you will have to describe Einsatzzentrale KP in Mount Brünig. Unfortunately this PDF isn't even text (is photocopy) - so I can't copy paste to translate (so I'm stuck with my rather poor German).... But it does seem to describe a central command center (and the photograph does seem to show one - with electronic displays from all 4 radar systems). The central command (or distributed - what matters is integrating the disparate views from specific radar systems into a unified view), if it is developed, is what distinguishes a system - from a random collection of radars. If you develop this in the article (with proper sourcing / attribution) - I will change my vote.Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Icewhiz, sorry, I am also not able to copy the thest of this photo PDf, so i can also not use it on google translate. But I have used it as ref and add a text that the system had a underground Commando center  inside Mt. Brünig. also I aad a link to some B/W phots abut Swiss air Force Radars..on this external link are also a few Pictures from the system.B/W Pictures of the SRF-Radar ER-220 System. FFA P-16 (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * keep due to improved sourcing and description of underground command center.Icewhiz (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The first three of those four extra sources are copies of Swiss military internal documents, so they do nothing to establish notability. The fourth is independent, but I will offer no opinion on whether it constitutes in-depth coverage until after I read it. YSSYguy (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No they are NOT copies of Swiss military internal documents! Written in 2013, 2015, 2017 about a System from the 1950's-70's is definitiv not a copy of Swiss military "internal" documents. They show clearly notability.  Again You break your promise..(like after I add more Text to the Bucher Flugzeugschlepper Article).. Here I add more very good references with good & detailed informations about the topic of this articel, and i brought in the new informations into the text....FFA P-16 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake, the first is a document of a Swiss government department responsible for aspects of the Swiss military and the other two are documents of the Flieger- & Fliegerabwehrtruppen, which is the Swiss Air Force, is it not? So, not independent sources. Your 'article' about the aircraft tug was along the lines of "The ACME potato masher is a potato masher used by the Swiss Air Force. It can be used to mash all of the potatoes that the Swiss Air Force purchases, including Pink Eye, Kennebec and Idaho potatoes. It is used in all kitchens at bases of the Swiss Air Force"; then your added text that you keep complaining that I 'broke my promise' about amounted effectively to "It can also be used to mash potatoes when the Swiss Air Force operates away from its bases"; once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of notability in the WP environment. YSSYguy (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No. The first Document is from Armasuisse not from the Swiss Air Force. The second two no it is not From the Swiss Air Force this documents are writen in 2013 -2017 and in this time it is Just Swiss Air Force and not Flieger- & Fliegerabwehrtruppen. Walter Dürig wrote this in 2013 and 2017 but he was retiredas Commander of the Swiss Air Force in ons 31. Dezember 1989. And by Mr. Wiki Oberst (aD)  = (aD) =  ausser Dienst = in german  a therm for retierd Military personal. This are independent sources. These endless attempts to discredit sources must end now.  No I never ever had writen something about potato masher! You told me you will change your delet vote to a keep if I add more text/infos about the Bucher.  I had add this about his fast transportability and about his use on ad-hoc missions on highways who where used as war time runways..This is definitely something that does not apply to all aircraft tractors.FFA P-16 (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I already said I had made a mistake about the first document being from the air force, it is a document of the government department responsible for the Swiss military, the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport, so not independent. As for the second and third, are they from the Flieger- & Fliegerabwehrtruppen or are they self-published documents from Walter Dürig? Once again your comment about the tug shows your lack of understanding - of notability and of analogy as well. Why would I have changed my opinion over the extra material? The use of stretches of road as emergency runways might be notable, but that does not in any way mean that the use of a tug to move aircraft on those stretches of road would make the tug notable. YSSYguy (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is still NOT from the Air Force so it is interpendent. No the are NOt fromthe Air Force. Again they are written in 2013-2017. In this time is no "Flieger- & Fliegerabwehrtruppen".. The "Flieger- & Fliegerabwehrtruppen" was the name back  in the time when Dürig was active Commander, so it makes sens that he use this.. Oh.. because it is from Dürig It does not count.. so every thing written by someone who had oce or is working in the topic about he write does not count?  That is absolut nonsens. It was you who brought up the poatato nonsens not me. "hy would I have changed my opinion over the extra material?"  Because you promissed it! I had add this additional infos. Also listend up the Missions who this tug took part on such highway exercices. This is notable, because only a smale minorety of aircraft tugs worldwide are used in such a way. It is obvious that you are again playing the same game and it does not concern you at all about the relevance of airspace monitoring systems. With teamwork and  your abilities, wikipedia would benefit much more (improvement, not deletion..) instead of ban people and informations from wikipedia. FFA P-16 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 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.