Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of 21st century fighter aircraft

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 of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of 21st century fighter aircraft

This article is almost entirely original research, and when viewed against the other articles in Category:Military comparison has no stylistic or content similarities. This is the type of article that should be read in air combat magazines or written by pundits, not the type that belongs in an encyclopedia. ericg ✈ 06:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm ambivalent about this. In its current form I have no problem deleting it. I had been planning on changing it to an article on 4th generation fighters; trimming out most of the comparative aspects but keeping the basics, the comparative costs, and the DERA study. --Mmx1 06:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see that there are parts of the article which need some help with sourcing, NPOVing and general cleanup. On the other hand, in some sections the article actually contains a fair amount of external links which provide sources for the claims. I think that deleting the entire article would be too drastic a measure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete current incarnation as original research, but I would probably keep a retitled, rewritten (npov) version of this article. --Alan Au 09:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakkalle. Encyclopedic subject, but requires major rewriting and page-splitting. Twinxor t 12:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakkalle. Needs cleanup and a total rewrite. Current state is definitely unacceptable. --Terence Ong 13:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs a very heavy rewrite and serious trimming. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — I find it encyclopedic, but it needs citations. If there were a military/war CotW it could make an interesting project. — RJH 14:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Topic itself invites Original Research. del per ericg ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a technical measure. It seems that this article is going to be renamed 4th and 5th generation fighter aircraft or something similar sometime in the future. The new article should probably incorporate the factual things from the current article. Of course, I only support keeping it in order to provide non-Admins easier access to its factual statements. Otherwise, I fully support deleting it. Ingoolemo ^talk 16:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, move to User Space in preparation for new article I've had resistance in changing the status quo, deleting would remove a lot of that resistance. Since I proposed the renaming, let me take it, work on it, and move the new content to the 4th gen fighter article, while keeping this deleted to stanch any effort to keep OR. I think we're all agreed that this article in its current form and title invites OR, but has some useful information. I think this is the best way to satisfy both viewpoints. --Mmx1 18:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The section on the DERA study needs to stay, but some other subjective information needs to be removed. --zeroyon 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - it will be difficult to separate OR, but this is not an emotive topic, unlike a comparison of sportspeople or politics.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• I beg to differ. Nationalism plays a big role in this topic. People get very defensive about their own nation's aircraft. --Mmx1 11:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up as per Sjakkalle. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as this could be good information for the layperson, but needs to be renamed and cleaned up as above. And yes, experience on other articles suggests there will be nationalists who assert the superiority of their country's planes, so we have to watch out for this. Note that these are fourth-generation jet fighters, as there were plenty of prop fighter generations. ProhibitOnions 19:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• The currently popular proposal is "4th and 5th" or just "4th generation fighter jet aircraft" --Mmx1 19:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, decent topic, needs a rewrite as noted above. 156.34.90.110 00:35, 7 April 2006 (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.