Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solo Türk


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Solo Türk

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Most Air Forces have one or more solo display aircraft that fly in events and airshows and unlike multiple aircraft aerobatic teams these are not really notable, I cant see that this solo aircraft is particularly notable outside a mention on the Turkish Air Force page. MilborneOne (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nominator's rationale. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    23:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Air Forces solo display aircraft teams are notable. Air Forces solo display aircraft teams should have one pages, or at least build into the Air Force page with MORE than just 1-2 sentens.
 * FFA P-16 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The aircraft is not the major subject of the significant sources cited and is not notable enough for a standalone article, as explained by Notability (aircraft). &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @Steelpillow I can not see any word on  Notability (aircraft)  that  single aircraft display Teams are not  notable..  There exist a few  single aircraft teams who play an important part on international air shows with history and some of them earned aviatic awards.  I don't see any reason why  Display Teams with  2 or more aircraft  can bee on Wikipedia  and  such with 1 aircraft not.FFA P-16 (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * One lone machine is not a "team". The team of people is even less notable than the aircraft. If a given "team" gains enough mention then notability can be established in the usual way by citing reliable sources which actually address the notability of the aircraft and/or its team. That is not the case here, the main sources are concerned with a centenary event and this aircraft's display gets only a passing mention. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well the therm Team is not only relatet to the numbers of aircraft. I can not agree with "The team of people is even less notable than the aircraft". Whitout  more than 1 person no aircraft display would be possibel . Also the definition "One lone machine is not a "team"" is not right  its 1 Superpuma or Cougar.. but its the Super Puma Display Team..Super Puma Display TEAM. Or   again its SWISS HORNET DISPLAY TEAM. Also they don't do just some fly by, they have a real display program with manouvers specialised for a display.  FFA P-16 (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Still on Notability (aircraft)  is no definition about Display Teams nor a definition about the term "Team". To have here on English Wikipedia only the Teams from 2 aircraft  and more  but suppress informations about single aircraft display teams makes Wikipedia in this aeronautics topic an unusable tool.FFA P-16 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tool for informations. It is not at wikipeda to define what is an aerobatic team and what is not. If an Air Force like the Greece, Belgian, Swiss, Turkish Air Force(in this case the Turkish Air Force) has given an single aircraft display team the official statuts, it si it. Wikipedia can (should)put in this in its "database". To think Wikipedia could determine over decisions of Air Force is illogical and absurd. Banish teams with only one airplane from Wikipedia, violated the basic idea of Wikipedia about the neutral and equitable access of information.FFA P-16 (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I appreciate the effort put in creating the article, but I see no notability on it. If single aircraft in airline fleets are not notable, I don't see why a particular military aircraft is.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 17:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: These single aircraft demonstrations should just be a simple mention on the page of the applicable air force, not their own article. - Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment two issues. 1) is there significant mentions in reliable sources to show notability of the subject, 2) is there sufficient material to write a complete article without padding the article with non-notable material? I think both need to be achieved for the article to stand alone. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment also note that air forces like the Royal Air Force have had four or five solo demonstration aircraft every year for a long time, at the beginning of the season you get a press release as they paint a new scheme on an aircraft to use, although it is the pilot who is the authorised demonstrator so sometimes they dont use the "painted" aircraft. Take the other Swiss example the Swiss Super Puma solo demonstrator uses a different aircraft from the fleet every time as the display authority for solos is the pilot. We might consider a stand-alone article on military aircraft solo demonstrators but if you look at something like the Royal International Air Tattoo these are pretty common and none I would say are notable for a stand-alone article like this one. MilborneOne (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The Super Puma Display Team can use any of the Swiss Air Forces Super Puma or Cougar right, but we should not focus on it if the aircraft has a special painting or if there are 1 or more pilots. I think the approach for such single aircraft teams verification of notability should be his continuity in standardized existence for several years (for eg. since min.3 years) with regular displays flown on public events and or airshows. No mater if an aircraft has a special painting or not. I would not count aircraft with a special paint for just a single event (for eg . NATO Tigermeet) to this.FFA P-16 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2015 (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.