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.
KEEP It was a Important Air Surveilance System for decades, when it was new it was one of the modernst Air surveilance systems but it was also one of the air suveilance systems who stayed very long in active service and paved the way for the today system. "Fails GNG" is just a cover argument for The Banners constant hunt on me and articels i worked on. The number of from The banner nominated articels i had written (especaly about the Divison General) shows exactly that it is not about GNG and draves a clear picture... Very interesting is that ther is now a long line of AfD s from against articels from me..it is no coincidence that he now drag FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system and SRF Airspace monitoring and management systemto AfD after they exist already 4 years with "Fail WP GNG" at the same time put no other radar system who was not written from me in question (like Austrian air defense or French air defence radar systems) who's WP GNG is even weaker.FFA P-16 (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written and with ample sources. A national air defense system is notable - if it is covered in RS - and here it is.Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Constructively - Some of the links are dead FFA P-16 - I suggest you update to stable link or archive them. I was able to reach some of them via google - e.g. [1] which 404s via google on title goes to [2]. In contrast I wasn't able to find "Übersicht Radarsysteme der Schweizer Luftfahrt" easily - it's also dead. Some of the titles should also be fixed (particularly giving context to the youtube) On the other hand - User:The Banner - while youtube in itself isn't reliable, if what is shown there is an historical film - then it probably is something. And just because a link is dead - doesn't mean there is no source. And I bet you didn't chase down the book references (I didn't).Icewhiz (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - just quick search brings up plenty of additional sources - books - [3] shows several pages of relevant English language mentions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FFA P-16: These might be good for incorporation in the article: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. This is from a quick search + filtering for English language sources - but you need to try and get the full source (google-books is great for finding stuff (and shows up nice in text preview) - but for stuff from the last century with copyright - you often have to get the book itself.Icewhiz (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are quite a few sources on this topic, and the nomination statement does not set out any problems with them that might mean that they don't satisfy the notability criteria. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep: Well sourced and notable. I will work on improving the article, especially the referencing, in the next week or so. FFA P-16 should bring his concerns about this being a bad-faith nomination to WP:ANI. This is not the place to discuss them. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:09, 30 April 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.