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. The subject clearly passes our notability guidelines and there is no consensus to merge the content back to the parent article (and the size of the parent article would make such a merger inadvisable). The nominator has failed to show how WP:POVFORK or WP:SPINOFF are relevant in this case. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force[edit]

Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unneccesary duplication of information on Hawker Hunter, also fails WP:POVFORK and WP:SPINOFF. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This looks like a perfectly good topic for an article to me, and the rationale for deleting it seems unclear from the nomination. I think that there's heaps of scope for lots more articles like this one - there's extensive coverage in books, magazine articles, etc, of the service histories of aircraft in individual air forces so notability shouldn't be a problem. Any problems with the text of the article (which aren't specified in the AfD nomination) should be fixable, I'd imagine. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this article came about as a result of a content dispute (undue level of detail, editing grammar etc) which now leaves us in a forked situation. If this is a case of expansion of the operational history of the Hunter becoming an overlarge part of the aircraft article it would be better to have a Hawker Hunter operational service article and build up the content for all operating nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs)

Having pondered the matter some more, I don't think this a viable sub-article, a fork which includes a lot of verbatim quoting from a pd site. I think the appropriate action is to merge anything useful that isn't already covered back to the "parent" and Delete this article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to be an ordinary editing dispute - two cooks in one kitchen. As the Hawker Hunter article is large, then some spinoff seems reasonable. Warden (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a redundant content fork from the main article. While many of the obvious faults are fixable, once all the content that isn't sourced to reliable sources, and all the non-encyclopedic Original Research ("an imaginative red-and-white color scheme" etc) then what youi are left with is effectively what is already in the main article.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it doesnt add anything to the main article, after it was split out by an editor who could not get it included in the main Hawker Hunter article anything of relevance was added to Hawker Hunter by other editors. If we remove everything dupicated in the main article and take into consideraion wp:weight and notability it would not leave much at all in this article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect; although I am a major advocate for article size spinoffs the primary article Hawker Hunter does not appear to yet met guidance set forth in WP:SIZERULE. Presently the parent article is at 55k , if the content from this article is merged with the parent article the total content would be about 70K. While that is between the you really should and it can be suggestions, it is not the 100k+ size prescribed by SIZERULE. Now if the parent article does get to that point I think a better spinout would be like Hawker Hunter operational history similar to F-14 Tomcat operational history, that would encompass service in the multiple nations that had the aircraft.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect; this could be easily covered at the main Hawker Hunter article, there's no need for a spinoff at this point. The length isn't particularly pressing on housing it soley in the main article, especially when the uncited OR additions are snipped off: It'll fit in fine on the main, for now it should just be covered there. Kyteto (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; for the reasons already said by Nick-D. Apart this, i find that this request for deletion had not even valid reasons to be opened at all and is a clear abuse of this instrument. Moreover, i though laugable that this article should be merged after i was -in fact- forbidden to edit in the main Hunter article and later i struggled for days in order to make a decent article spin-off (like zillions in Wikipedia) and enrich the wikipedia database, damaged in fact by the reverts made by the same editor that has opened this request. When someone will show the willing to build an article such F-4 non US operators relative to the Hunter, then it could be evalued the merging, but this is not what we are going to see for the present time and there is no reasons to force things in this way (Swiss Hunters had a long history, this is not what can be said for all the Hunter's costumers). The week is past, the agreement has not reached, this is an overall abuse and therefore i ask to close this request.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nick-D - seems a valid topic to me. mgeo talk 21:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is plenty of reliable sourcing about this topic, allowing it to pass the notability bar easily. A quick search finds at least two books and a number of private associations dedicated to the topic of the Hunter's service in the Swiss Air Force:

• Peter Lewis, Olivier and Peter Gunti: Hunter - ein Jäger für die Schweiz. ISBN 3-85545-840-5
• Hans Prisi: Die Geschichte der Schweizer Hunter-Flotte

That makes it a valid subtopic (WP:SS) of Hawker Hunter, where it is (as is appropriate) briefly summarized. A merger is not appropriate because the subtopic is independently notable, and this amount of content (and degree of detail) would not fit well into the main article. That is what subarticles are for. As to POVFORK, I see neither a particular POV nor a forking of content in this article. That aspect of the nomination is disruptive.  Sandstein  06:54, 23 March 2012 (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.