Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Light fighter: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:45, 18 December 2010

Light fighter

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

Appears to be a neologism. All of the aircraft mentioned in this article except the Caudron C.714 (It's claim that it is a light fighter is uncited) are not called light fighters.The F-16 was born out of the Lightweight fighter program but is designated as a multirole fighter. Marcus Qwertyus 21:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the phrase "Light fighter" in Flight of 3 April 1953 and 15 May 1953 in referring to the Folland Gnat. Why that isn't in the article I don't know. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neologism? That'll be why the US Gov had the Lightweight Fighter program (referenceable up the wazoo) back in the 1960s. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fighter aircraft. Not a neologism at all, but not notable enough for a stand-alone article IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to fighter aircraft. I don't think that there is enough to keep as a standalone article, but too much to delete outright. Sometimes classification is a bit subjective, but aircraft are surely known as light sometimes. I'll also note that in my mind, the term has a stronger connotation to highly mobile foot infantry than aircraft. bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - happy for a merge though if references can be added. Anotherclown (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The F-16 only became multitole after major changes from the original lightweight design. It is clearly spelled out in the article there are numerous light fighter designs throughout aircraft history, right until today. It is as distort from fighter as light bomber is from bomber. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 05:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fighter aircraft - note light infantry potential confusion problem as per Bahamut0013. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and disambiguate merge to fighter aircraft, and disambiguate between the class (described in "fighter aircraft") the program that the F-16 evolved from ("lightweight fighter program") and light infantry. 65.94.46.54 (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''':  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation|list of Transportation-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Marcus Qwertyus|<font color="#21421E" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">'''Marcus'''</font>]] [[User talk:Marcus Qwertyus|<font color="#CC7722" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">'''Qwertyus'''</font>]]  05:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)</small>
 *'''Merge and redirect''' to [[Fighter aircraft]] - note [[light infantry]] potential confusion problem as per Bahamut0013. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 08:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
+*'''Merge and disambiguate''' merge to [[fighter aircraft]], and disambiguate between the class (described in "fighter aircraft") the program that the F-16 evolved from ("lightweight fighter program") and light infantry. [[Special:Contributions/65.94.46.54|65.94.46.54]] ([[User talk:65.94.46.54|talk]]) 08:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)