Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generations of jet fighter

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generations of jet fighter

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

Unreferenced list-type article that acts simply as a "link" page to the various "# generation jet fighter" articles - a role already covered by Fighter aircraft. Defintion of the aircraft in the various generations is quite controversial and prone to OR, as well (I've seen a comment somewhere that the Chinese themselves consider the J-20 fourth generation - !). Overall this duplicates both Fighter aircraft and Category:Generations of jet fighter and, especially compared to the former, doesn't possess any encyclopediac value. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to say 'merge' but the material is already present at Fighter aircraft. I do note that the latter article needs a lot more inline cites. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not really add any value to what already is in other articles and due to the nature of biased nationalistic sources is unlikely to be reliable referenced. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a +stub article that was recently created and has the potential to expand, that is all that is required for an article to pass inspection. In addition, this article is very helpful to end-user providing summarized accurate information that will fill out over time. There should be a "KEEP & EXPAND" +tag at the top of the this article not an afd +tag! Zabanio (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fighter aircraft, getting rid of the current contents. This will keep the "potential to expand", while pointing to the ___location that currently has much more elaborate (and much better sourced) information on the topic of generations of jet fighters. A redirect can be in any time turned back into article, but there is no reason to duplicate the information right now. --Kubanczyk (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Redundant - There already are articles on each of the fighter generations, and Fighter aircraft#Jet-powered fighters covers the same topic in greater depth. Nothing here worth merging to the other articles. - BilCat (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant per BilCat. Anotherclown (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fighter aircraft: redundant to that article and the category. bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That a concept is ambiguous does not mean it cannot be discussed here. So are such terms as Democracy , to give the first example I thought of . If different countries use different generations, let the article be expanded to reflect it. And how it can be redundant to the Category:Generations of jet fighter escapes me, since this article is the only article even in that category, though I would have expected the articles on the individual generations to be there also. I note the simultaneous attempt to delete the Template at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 20. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact they weren't in that category was a mistake on my part when re-categorising them before, which I've now fixed. However this article is still extraordinarily redundant to both Fighter aircraft and the independent articles on the generations - if there is to be discussion about the generations, it should be on those pages, not on this page, which would become nothing but unverifiable WP:OR and WP:POV in a hurry. (If you doubt me, take a look at the edit history of HAL Tejas at some point...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As much as I do not like the fighter generation categorization scheme, I cannot in good faith endorse this deletion. Maybe merge sixth generation jet fighter into it? Marcus Qwertyus 17:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Er...what? I'm not sure what the reasoning for that is. And how does this article add value to the encyclopedia vis-a-vis the fact the subject is already covered, referenced and much more extensively, in Fighter aircraft? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with Bushranger except that the referencing needs serious work over there at fighter aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fighter aircraft covers this topic in unnecessary detail. Generations of jet fighter allows us the opportunity to cover this topic in detail. Marcus Qwertyus 04:38, 28 January 2011 (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.