Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solo Display Team


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Solo Display Team

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Individual display aircraft are fairly common and rarely notable, most large air forces have solo display aircraft which can be dealt with using a one line summary in the air force article although they are mostly not notable enough to even mention there. The proposed deletion was removed with the statement that most display teams are notable but as this article is about three individual display aircraft they are clearly not a display team as most readers would recognise. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. A solo team is a contradiction in terms. The phrase "solo display team" appears to indicate the people, etc. who support the displays, for example there may be more than one pilot who may be called on for any given display, or one or more aircraft held in reserve. There may also be a dedicated ground team. Such "teams" get some coverage in their local media and may even get brief international mention for some special event, but frankly I cannot see that such a team is made notable on that account. This Dutch team appears to be no exception. Here are a couple of precedents: Articles for deletion/Solo Türk and Articles for deletion/Super Puma Display Team. Also, if this article were to be kept then it would need moving to a more explicit title. Otherwise, that more explicit name ought to be created as a redirect to say the Royal Netherlands Air Force.&mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC) [Updated 18:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)]
 * Except "Solo Display Team" is the proper name of the subject. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Several air forces have a WP article about their display teams. Notability is established by multiple independent sources such as  . Maybe RNLAF Demo Teams would be a better name for the article though, because there seem to be three separate teams and apparently the "Solo" is problematic for some. I don't think splitting up the article into three separate articles is a good idea, it will only scatter the information. – Editør (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The existence of other articles is no argument - see WP:OTHER (I only included a couple of AfDs above so that editors can see the arguments used there). Short, chatty media reports do not establish notability either: the topic needs to be treated in depth. Furthermore, three non-notable topics do not together make a notable topic. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above. Ekki01 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is sufficent information available to demonstrate that this team (however you want to define "team") meets WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that is the problem three individual display aircraft flown at seperate events is not an aerobatic team and individual they are not notable. The only compromise would be to list all the other individual solo display aircraft in the world, and they are a few of them around but they are not really notable justy like the three here just a standard part of the air force public relations role. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It isn't "this team" as suggested, it's just three Dutch aircraft rammed into one article. Furthermore, whether individually or collectively they appear to fail WP:GNG. That requires "Significant coverage [which] addresses the topic directly and in detail", and we have seen no evidence that is the case. I just googled "Solo Display Team" and France, Belgium, Switzerland, Greece all use the phrase. No, there is nothing in the "keep" arguments to date but empty claims and pious dreams. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. – Editør (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2016 (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.