Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F/A-18C Mock-up MAGO

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 redirect to McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet#Switzerland. With a selective merge. Sandstein 19:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F/A-18C Mock-up MAGO[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The mock-up is a training device as you can find on every airport in the world. The encyclopaedic value is not more than that of a random fire truck of fire extinguisher Recreation of the earlier removed F/A-18C Mock-up that was deleted conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F/A-18C Mock-up The Banner talk 21:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - two individual installations, not a generic model, nor particularly notable and individual installations. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments that they are "as you can find on every airport in the world" and also "not a generic model" are inconsistent with each other. The "delete" camp cannot have it both ways. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP it is an important saefty tool and complex military hardware. It is NOT a training device like you can find on every airport, it is far more complex and the two crafts are very unique. BTW also articels about such Trainigtools are encyclopaedic value. Also this articel is only nominated here because of wikihounding and stalikng from The Banner against me.. The article is existing since some time but just a few h after Steelpillow left a message about this on my talkpage The Banner nominated it for deletion. this is no coincident this is missuse of AfD!!!FFA P-16 (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My friend, this is not even your article. So what is the fuss about? The Banner talk 23:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @The Banner I am not your Friend.. because you are hunting me mobbing me since years.. You knew very well what I talk about. Since years you are follow me and you are trying to sabotage everyting. So there is an article you don't care about, but as soon as smeone drop one word about it on MY talkpage you nominat this article in just a few h for deletion.. So only because of your sick wikihundig of me should this AfD get cloesd asap.FFA P-16 (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am sorry to say, FFA P-16, that you and your sockpuppets, including the creator of this article, are now blocked for sockpuppetry. Too much screaming about how vile I am and see the flight of the boomerang... The Banner talk 15:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. These are not notable outside of being 'training aids for Hornets', and while they probably are worthy of a paragraph (tops) in the aircraft's article, there is insufficient notability for an indepedent article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added a paragraph to the F/A-18 article section on Switzerland. If this option is to gain consensus, this AfD needs to stay open long enough to see if it sticks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since the previous AfD for F/A-18 Mock-up, the Swiss Air Force have updated their official registry of aircraft. These two installations are included and have officially been allocated unique aircraft registrations (tail numbers). They are even described in the registration list as "Boeing F/A-18C Hornet (Hugo Wolf)", i.e. as Wolf-manufactured copies of the American-built flight-capable machines. [1] They are thus not so much generic training equipment as non-flight-rated aircraft. I have also added to the present article two more sources for notability, which the previous AfD discussion missed. One is a piece in a major Swiss journal, the Berner Zeitung, which goes way beyond the "look, a big thing in the road" journalism previously cited.[2]. The other is from the specialist journal Allgemeine Schweizerische Militärzeitschrift.[3](pdf) (Translation of sorts, here). I have searched for similar information on any other "training device[s] as you can find on every airport in the world" claimed by the OP and I have found none. Unless someone can actually find some, the counter-claim (made by their manufacturer) that these models or mock-ups represent a unique approach to ground crew training, cannot be dismissed. Rather, the growing number of sources discussing these two "models" appears to support their unusual notability among training aids. (I disapprove of the current article title, but that is another issue.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Merge and Redirect per Bushranger. If it's kept, it would need to be rewritten entirely by someone fluent in English. - BilCat (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You know, I thought this looked familiar, and then after a bit of reminding I went and looked. And I wasn't losing my mind: this same article has been deleted before, and it was recreated following a consensus for deletion by the same article creator under a different title in what can easily be seen as an attempt to evade scrutiny with regards to the fact he was recreating an article deleted at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And after posting that I see Steelpillow's comments above pointing it directly out. A + point for that, but the point stands that this was previously deleted and (even if there are additional sources now) 'recreation without discussion under a different title' is a major "oops". In the sense that accidentally putting nukes on a B-52 is an "oops". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think this was the same creator as last time, the new account Zack McKracken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't been around that long (although I see athis sockpuppet investigation ~~has been requested~~ ~~is under way).~~ It was ~~still~~ a Bad Bunny thing to do, but I would hope that the article can be judged on its own merits and not on those of its creator or of its previous poor sourcing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another aviation training aid of which they are lots around and hardly of note per the deletion of the original article. This role has mainly been done by surplus real aircraft but more synthetic aircraft are are around. The fire training rig at Heathrow has been on many television programmes in the UK over the years and a similar device is at Gatwick but they dont merit an article. Another point made further up the UK has many training aids and simulators that are allocated military serials and the simulators and trai ning aids in the Netherlands are given unique civil registration marks (a 787 simulator is PH-BHQ for example). MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne: PH-BHQ appears to be a genuine 787 on order: e.g. [4]. There is a flight simulator, which is a typical 3-axis indoor cockpit simulator.[5] Given this apparent slip of yours, are the websites which think it is an order for a real craft the ones who are mistaken? Can you give some specific examples of other airfield-based ground crew training simulators which carry unique aircraft registration markings? i.e. not just software packages or wrecked airframes used for fire training (I have been trying to find evidence supporting the "not special" claim among editors here and so far I have failed). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 03:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
withdrawn vote It would appear to just about fail WP:GNG^{[dubious – discuss]} so policywise it is borderline^{[citation needed]}, but there really isn’t anything special about it, and given the other comments here and the fact it has been deleted before, I am voting delete. 10:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk • contribs)
@A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: Cited independent sources include respected journals, both news and trade. There is no doubt that in Switzerland this topic is notable. In what way does it fail English-language GNG? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the de-wiki version, if it passed GNG then why is everyone !voting delete? I suspect part of the issue is that we normally don't have articles for individual aircraft unless they are really really special even Air force one does not merit individual articles for the individual planes. Dysklyver 09:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The stability of the de version does help illustrate the notability evidenced in German-language reliable sources, but really I am referring to that body of sources itself. Two simulators are currently operational, so this is an article about an operational type not an individual machine. In any case, the English Wikipedia has long allowed articles for aircraft types where only a single example was built, sometimes where the design never got off the drawing-board. It all depends on what reliable sources say. You cannot sustain a "fails GNG" argument without reference to the sources put forward in support of notability. Did you actually check out the two secondary ones I recently added to the Bibliography? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not checked the new sources, no one here has actually read some of the sources, because they are both offline and in German. No one here has previously explained it is actual type of simulator well enough for me to understand that, I was, like most here i expect, under the impression this was a modified training aid. I think this AfD is descending into a mockery, little more than a pile on of people who don't understand the topic and can't read the sources. I apologies for having been one of those people and have withdrawn my vote. Dysklyver 11:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your honesty, I appreciate it. However, the new sources are in fact all online and linked to both from the article and from my "keep" vote above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um yes, it would be more accurate for me to say, some of the oldsources are offline / in German, and that I hadn’t checked the new sources. I will note also I can't deal with your PDF file links, although others might. Dysklyver 15:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. If this were an actual training simulator program in widespread use, it would be notable. An individual simulation environment is not. I recognize the work and care that someone put into making an article on this, and some of it should be merged into the Hornet article, but not much. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 16:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:GNG, a topic is as notable as reliable sources make it. Even belly-button fluff is notable if it makes enough headlines for long enough. See also immediately above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. A mock-up could meet GNG. This particular mock-up (which was produced as a one-off in two separate, and somewhat different, production runs) doesn't seem to meet GNG (I see some, but not much, swiss news coverage and manufacturer's brochure, and a few bits and pieces elsewhere).Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article creator (Zack McKracken) has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of now-indef'd FFA P-16. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.