Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jet fighter generations

Jet fighter generations

Jet fighter generations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Declined PROD. Prod Reason was " Unreferenced article that exists as a "List" to the individually referenced generation articles". One reference was inserted that claims the "commonality" of this classification, but as the article admits itself, "The terminology is ... unofficial. There is no central registry of features that qualify for each generation" Hasteur (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete like a boomerang it keeps coming back. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• • This article has existed before? I created it ab initio, not knowing that it had been around before. I suggest that the fact that multiple people have independently created this article shows that there is a strong need / desire for such an article. TJIC (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - This is more or less a directory page for massively-sourced articles on several of these "generations." It makes no sense at all to me to knock down the front end index differentiating these pieces. If those articles stand, then this piece should stand as a "list" of those pieces. I seriously doubt any of those would fail at AfD, ergo, this should remain. Ignore All Rules, use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Carrite, there's plenty of other ways to link the generations together (Templates, "See Also"s, Category:Generations of jet fighter). Lists are still supposed to be cited. Hasteur (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - I read several of the individual 'generations' articles and found each one lacking in context, because there was no indication of what had happened before each generation. A quick overview of the generations is quite helpful to me and others. TJIC (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - comes across to me as OR - None of the body's paragraphs are cited, and there is a lot of ambiguity. This doesn't strike me as an encyclopedic peice. Kyteto (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep; this appears to be a list article to the other "generations" pages, that are themselves referenced. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunantly, I have to disagree that the claims are referenced in the other generation articles. For instance, the title First generation (1942-1950): the dedicated article for this generation doesn't ever TRY to make this timeframe, it doesn't feature there. It has been plucked out of thin air from no apparent source, and most certainly is NOT referenced either here or in the sub-article. It is arbitrary self-assumed leaps like this that I'm identifying as Original Research and entirely subjective (I could put together a decent arguement for making the latter boundry for First Gen aircraft to be as late as 1955, the 1950 deadline is arbitrary, uncited, and no attempt to justify or explain that position has been given) - I can't accept that the information article is adequitely cited, even by proxy. Kyteto (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And the fact that there are references in another article is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Every article must be itself referenced. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me respectfully disagree. List articles need not be independently referenced. The governing guideline here is WP:SALAT, which is rather broad. As the generations articles for aircraft are all related, a list of those generations articles appears to be logical. For example there is a list of M series vehicles.

We can disagree regarding whether each fighter generation article is notable, however as they presently stand, it appears (to me anyway) that a centralized list to those articles is appropriate. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

...I'm not sure whether list articles not needing to be independently referenced or the stupendously lax notability "requirements" for books (one-third of a column in one specialist magazine reprinting a review = notable!) is more shocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - frankly the whole "generations" thing should be ditched; the whole thing is very much a neological marketing construct that the manufacturers use to "one-up" each other and extended retroactively in order to make it look legitimate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per Jim Sweeney, Kyteto, and The Bushranger. Poor quality articles that don't go much beyond OR should be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I created a template that includes each generation and placed it at the bottom of each corresponding article. SaveATreeEatAVegan 09:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  
  
  

  ---

  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
  

  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  ---

  • Keep The Bushranger writes that "frankly the whole 'generations' thing should be ditched," and maybe he's right; frankly, I don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion. But I do know that, as long as the "generation" articles are around and in use, maintaining this stand-alone list as an aid for reader navigation will be useful. Per WP:CLN, articles can be grouped using "categories, lists (including embedded lists, like lists included in See also sections), and navigation templates.... The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping." At the risk of stating the obvious, any information on the page that isn't factual should be removed or fixed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

    So to make sure I understand correctly, Any uncited content (including ones where the reference does not support the citation) may be removed? If that's the case the article wouldn't have enough content in it to be reasonably sized and be right back here as a unjustifiable stub. Hasteur (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

    No. I said that information that isn't factual should be removed or fixed. I was commenting on Kyteto's complaint that some of the uncited information in the article isn't factual. However, if you're saying that the entire article is based on a concept made-up by a Wikipedia editor, then I think I would strike my vote to keep. Is that what you're saying, though? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete like all the "generation" fighter stuff mainly made up and uncited. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)