Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Puma 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   merge to Swiss Air Force. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Super Puma Display Team

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Single aircraft used for military displays are rarely notable and not that uncommon. Most air forces have at least one and sometimes many solo display aircraft that appear at air shows and displays. As an aside, a single helicopter is unlikely to be aerobatic and certain not a "team". Contested PROD MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no need to delet this page, only because it is performed  whit one aircraft, and it can be done with any of the swiss air force Superpumas or Cougars. It is a official Team of the swiss Air Force since years and shown every year inside and outside switzerland. It matches to the category like this = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solo_T%C3%BCrk

Also if it should not fit to the category "Aerobatic teams" is no need to delet it, it can still stand in the category "Swiss Air Force".

I am the opinien that there is no need to delet it  and still have it as own page in the Swiss Air Force category because the Swiss air Force it self  see the Super Puma Display Team as an equal Team to the other teams of the Swiss air Force, like PC-7 Team, Patrouille Suisse,. Please have a look at the Swiss Air Force Page about the Super Puma display Team Flight patern of Superpuma Display = http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/verbaende/einsatz_lw/kunstflugteam/superpuma/teil.html Program (see for eg. Superpuma at RAF Tatto Waddington 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) 18:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW: The Super Puma Display Team fly not onlysolo, it fly a few times also together with the PC-7 Team FFA P-16 (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Well it has to do with the Swiss Air Force, it is one of the official Display Teams for the Swiss Air Force. It's a differend if an Air Force just shows a aircraft on an airshow with flying a few rounds or if ther is shown a whol programm from pilots. please have a look at the links i put in by the discusion (BTW also with the picture search you see this exist since a long time,and is an Importent part of the Swiss Air Force So it should at least still exist in the Swiss air Force category]
 * Categorisation is irrelevant; notability is. Your arguments seem to make the case for a Swiss Air Force display teams article for them all, not for individual articles. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bushranger, The Patrouille Suisse and PC-7 Team are already both own pages and fit in the category I don't think it made much sens to put the all in one page or create a page with all 4 teams and have still seperat pages for the ps and pc-7 Team. A new category for single Aircraft display teams would not only bee for this two, it would also bee for the Solo Türk, the Greek Solodisplay and much more, I think it would be interesting to have them to on wikipedia. FFA P-16 (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:N, non-notable, no third party refs. - Ahunt (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

*Keep Well enough and important enough to stay in the Category Swiss Air Force. FLORAKO (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC) User is a confirmed sock of FFA P-16. Mike V •  Talk  19:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Have add 3-party refs  FFA P-16 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Swiss Air Force for now. The issue as far as I can tell is simply one of notability and it seems like the subject should be notable. But for whatever reason I'm having trouble finding enough in depth coverage from reliable secondary and tertiary sources to ring the N Bell. Only one of the cited sources passes RS and that just isn't enough. Am open to reconsideration if additional RS sources are found. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Famous display team of the Swiss Air Force. The request started with the strange arguement that it is "certain not a team". Grammar aside, the article lists all current pilots of the team by name... --Kreteglobi (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@MilborneOne The Swiss Air Force declar it clearly as a Team equal to the Patrouille Suiss and PC-7 Team, this are not just some Pilots who made some flights in front of the public Ad -hoc. This Pilots stay at the team for a few years and only the Pilots of the Team do these shows, all other swiss air force helicopter pilots don't fly such shows. By the PC -/team also not all members are flying at a show, you have the commander, 2 speakers and a spare pilot. The super Puma Team is performing now since many years inside and outside switzerland at air shows it is ntable like the patrouille suisse. If dosent fit in the Aerobatic Team category it is still importetn enough for the Swiss Air Force category. A other thing ist to restore the Hornet Display Page and merge them together to a Swiss Air Force Solo Display Team page. FFA P-16 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment the not a team was related to the fact the article presented a single Super Puma as an Aerobatic Team, which was clearly wrong. I have removed the list of current pilots as it is not really encyclopedic, although it does give an indication that the "team" is fairly ad-hoc and doesnt have a dedicated display pilot like other solo display aircraft. I cant see any evidence of fame, most air forces take examples of current aircraft and display them and the references indicate that but hardy raise the level to famous, clearly notable Patrouille Suisse doesnt even make that claim. MilborneOne (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment you cant restore the Hornet Display Page as the community has decided it is not notable, and both the Hornet and Super Puma are covered in the Swiss Air Force article so it is unlikely that we have enough material for a separate Swiss Air Force Solo Display Team article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - lacks sourcing at the moment to meet GNG. The only independent source cited is a Swiss newspaper article for which the sum total of its coverage is (via google translate): "Spectacular is the flight demonstration of the Super Puma Display Team. The specially trained pilots show with their performance dynamics and a portion of the capabilities of the Super Pumas.  For this purpose, they fly a normal Super Puma or Cougar, which is commonplace in use.  Optimize their round eight minute program for each of the geographical and meteorological conditions at the film screenings." GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment A lot of the discussion on here seems to be ignoring the only issue that matters, that being notability. At present the article does not pass WP:GNG for want of in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. Until that changes, all of the other discussion is neither here nor there.
 * Reply That is not actually true. What N actually says is that a topic which satisfies GNG is presumed to be notable. N does not say that a topic that fails GNG is inherently non-notable, or even that it is presumed to be non-notable. GNG does not work in reverse. The idea that it does is a persistent but complete misconception. The implication is that a topic which fails GNG is nevertheless notable if there is sufficient local consensus that it is "worthy of notice" (a concept that is not ultimately defined). I should also point out that there is a template at the top of N which warns that it is only a guideline and is likely to have exceptions. James500 (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore GNG itself does not in absolute terms require multiple sources. Nor does it provide a meaningful definition of "significant coverage". The canonical example of insignificant coverage is a single sentence. The level of coverage in this case is actually several times greater than that. James500 (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are exceptions to N. IAR and COMMONSENSE both come to mind. My view of those exceptions however may be summed up in the memorable words of one of our former presidents (on a different subject). I believe that invoking IAR should be safe, legal and rare. In my experience that would seem to be the consensus in the community. With respect to your interpretation of GNG, again I'd have to say that if almost everyone else disagrees with you, then your view might be outside community consensus. Your suggestion that a single sentence might be sufficient to meet the standards for coverage in GNG is one that I feel fairly confident is not consistent with consensus. And yes, GNG does state that multiple (as in more than one) sources is required. It repeatedly employs the world "sources" which is the plural form of the word "source." That's pretty clear to me. But all of this is not terribly important on this particular discussion as I see nothing that would remotely justify an IAR KEEP for this article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (1) I did not suggest that a single sentence would suffice. I suggested that several sentences might suffice. (2) GNG says that multiple sources are "generally" required. The word "generally" means "in most cases" (Compact OED). It does not mean "in all cases". It could mean "in 50%+1 of all cases" and that is how I think it should be construed. (3) Keeping a topic that fails GNG does not necessarily involve invoking IAR. It is allowed by the wording of N if there is consensus that the topic is worthy of notice. James500 (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of GNG and notability requirements is I think, outside of established consensus within the community. That doesn't make your opinion illegitimate. Point in fact I too have a few areas of deep disagreement with community consensus. If you dig around you might run into one or more of my rants against the near carte blanche presumption of notability extended to high schools and colleges. But it is what it is. I am in a small minority and I understand that. Which is one reason I usually avoid those articles and related AfD discussions. In any event if you want to make an argument to keep this I will happily look at it. I try to keep an open mind, but I am afraid I don't agree with your interpretation of the guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I say it agiant the Swiss Air Force see this (and the Hornet Display) as an team equal to the PS and PC-7 Team. The Team exist aporx since 10 years. It performs every year shows in solo or together wit other teams of of the swiss air force So it is definitiv  important enoug to exist in the Swiss Air Force category. We have the (official Federal!) Page of the Swiss Air Force as referenc, but we have also the Homepage of the Superpuma Team itself, we have the Facebook page of it, we have it also on the hermankeist page. We have the DVD of the Superpuma Team, ther are many clips on youtube. In my eys this is proof enoug. *Swiss Air Force. "Super Puma Display Team" in German FFA P-16 (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC) @MilborneOne, No the Swiss Air Force Page dosen't cover the SUperpuma Team and  it dosent not cover the Hornet Display. It says nothing sonce when it exist, it doesnt say something about the relation aircraft to the pilot's sqd. You are right that this page is now deleted but this does not exclude the possibility to create one single page for the Swiss Air Force single display Teams. Also I don't se why the Solo Türk can exist but the ones from the Swiss Air Force not. FFA P-16 (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * DVD "Super Puma Air Display
 * Herman Keist Super Puma Display Team
 * Super Puma Display Team Homepage german
 * youtube Clip Super Puma Display Team with Cougar at AFB Dübendorf
 * Super Puma Display Team on Facebook.
 * Badge of the Team
 * Badge
 * Super Puma Display (and Hornet Display) at the AIR14 Eery day
 * Super Puma Display (and Hornet Display) at the AIR14 Eery day


 * Keep STILL Well enough and important enough to stay in the Category Swiss Air Force.Like I said in the first round of this talk.FLORAKO (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Striking duplicate !vote. You are free to comment as often as you like in the discussion but we !vote only once. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think that, bearing in mind the nature of this topic, the coverage provided by the Swiss newspaper cited above is sufficient. James500 (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks notability and reads promotionally. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see that this is not an ad-hoc team from 10 days of the air14 they perform on 8 days (saturday30. superpuma is also the superpuma team) &  and that they perfrom reguraly each year on axalp. FFA P-16 (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC) @Chris Troutman. It is not promotionally, because the Super Puma Display Team don't need to be promotet, they get every year many requests to fly a display, more requests as they can do. Also the don't earn money with this, every display flown, by the Superpuma- Hornet- PC-7Team and patrouille suisse is free, the airforce don't charge any money for it so it can't be a promotion. FFA P-16 (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Swiss Air Force per Ad Orientem. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:07, 22 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.