Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurofighter Typhoon procurement


 * 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Eurofighter Typhoon procurement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Queried speedy delete as copyvio of http://newspaperslibrary. org/article/WHEBN0000167667/Eurofighter%20Typhoon (which link is on Wikipedia's blacklist), but User:Jurryaany says that that external page is itself a copy of an earlier version of a Wikipedia article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Baby miss  fortune 05:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Baby miss  fortune 05:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like took the content from  without providing the license required attribution. At least some the content was removed from that article by . —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a copy and paste content fork from the main article as the user presumably didnt like the change that had been made in the main article. The reasons for not including this stuff in the main article that this is day-to-day marketing activity that is standard practice in the both the defence and aviation industry and is not particularly noteworthy does not support a content fork. Some marketing campaigns are noteworthy by there political nature and these are still included in the main article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The very reason this article was created is because MilborneOne would not allow this content on "his" article in the first place. Jurryaany (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Which absurd comment pretty much clinches the rationale for this AfD. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll elaborate. The case is similar to that of the F-35. The original article Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II had its procurement page Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement spun off as the main article was getting too long with this information. I've opted to do the same for the Eurofighter Typhoon as it is clear the main article would get too long as well. A lot of valuable information is kept in these procurement pages, it'd be a shame to let that go to waste for the sake of brevity of the main article.Jurryaany (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Snow delete: copyvio, content fork, etc. etc. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am giving the benefit of the doubt to . If the article was indeed copied from an earlier WP article, then this is noteworthy content to the world at large because _someone_ thought it worthy of interest. I, personally, having looked at the article, think it is waaay more interesting than some of the trivia I have found documented in WP. So I oppose this on two grounds. (a) I think the article itself is noteworthy. (b) If user:Jurryaany claim is correct, the reasons why this article is being considered for deletion are invalid. Is there any way to look up the older history of this article? Would the wayback machine help? Not sure how to go about validating this.
 * FYI - I don't agree that this is marketing material at all. Defense acquisitions can be extremely complex bids, and this sort of history is typical for what happens. I used to work in this field, so this is somewhat of interest to me, but it is easy to imagine that there are many people who would find this content invaluable. A really paranoid android (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * [Sigh] Yes, some Wikipedia editors get very interested in such stuff, but WP:VERIFY requires that WP:RS also find it notable. This has not been demonstrated through adequate citations of said RS. deleted this stuff for good reason, and recreating it here is not the answer. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't agree at all. I looked through the references in the article and I see a number of very reliable sources being used. I also see, some not so reliable sources, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater isn't the right thing to do. I believe that improving the quality of the references can help preserve a useful article.
 * I'm not sure why you write "some Wikipedia editors get very interested in such stuff". Is there something wrong with people being interested in such matters? A really paranoid android (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, purrleeeze. Nothing wrong with being interested, everything wrong with plastering your belly-button fluff all over Wikipedia. If significant content is indeed backed by RS then it should be restored to the original article, not recreated here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not weighing in on this particular case as I haven’t read through everything yet, but don’t forget about WP:SS: if there is enough significant, reliably sourced content of one particular aspect of a topic, and inclusion of all of it would unbalance the main article, it absolutely be split off into its own page and then summarized on the main article. This should have been discussed on the talk page first, and I am not saying that it is necessarily appropriate in this case, but it is a valid option that should be considered.   C Thomas3   (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep valid spinoff. The politicking of production/sales is a notable and well covered topic for these types of project (particularly large EU projects - but also boondoggles such as the F-35). I can see how the procurement content would be overly detailed in the the main article - which exactly the situation in which we create a spinoff. World Heritage Encyclopedia (the alleged copyvio) seems like a Wikipedia clone. Icewhiz (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are mistaking the establishment of a fact for the establishment of its significance. The fact of these Typhoon negotiations is documented and undeniable, but in most cases their political and hence encyclopedic significance is not. The few whose political significance is reliably sourced have ample space in the parent article, the rest have no place on Wikipedia. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As they seem to be covered in secondary RSes (and do not run foul of any NOT) they have encyclopedic significance. Is this a vital article? No. But it will cut down on the crud in the main Typhoon article.Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That does not follow. WP:ONUS makes it clear that "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article." See for example here, where an aircraft-related article was deleted because the many journal sources it cited established verifiability but were deemed inadequate to establish its encyclopedic merits. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The merits for a mockup (or two) to pass GNG - and multi-billion procurement programs to pass GNG - are quite different. It is quite clear this topic passes GNG, and I don't see a NOT fail. "not encyclopedic" is not a valid notability argument in enwiki. Frankly the dispute on the main page here - Eurofighter Typhoon - is really best resolved by a spinoff. You get to cut down on the nitty-gritty details on procurement in the main article, while the much lesser-seen spinoff gets all the details - this really should be a win-win here. Icewhiz (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are many ways to fall short of significance. This is essentially a list article, or contains lists, so guidelines such as WP:LSC and WP:CSC apply. And some NOTs, such as WP:CRYSTAL, do apply to some sections. By the time the crud has been eliminated, the remaining usable content is just a copy of what has been retained in the parent article. But there, I guess you and I must agree to differ on what counts as crud. That's what this AfD needs to decide. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with (talk) and (talk) BlueD954 (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Icewhiz. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no “benefit of the doubt”, by her/his own statement above Juryaany created the article under discussion as a means of dealing with a dispute over the content of the parent article, and all of the keep !votes are either glossing over or completely ignoring that. There is a lot of information in the article that clearly has nothing to do with procurement, but that can be fixed by editing. Wikipedia should in no way endorse article creation as a method of dealing with a content dispute, hence the outcome here ought to be an automatic delete; it ought to be completely unacceptable to have content forking whenever someone doesn’t like that someone else has removed material from an article. The keep !votes here are evidence of support for the information being included, but it should be in the original article and after a consensus has been reached. I would be editing to remove some of the information. YSSYguy (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there some WP policy that backs up your assertions that an automatic delete is mandated? A really paranoid android (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I said it ought to be an automatic delete; as far as I know there is no policy (who’d have thought that someone would create an article as a way to stop a content dispute dead?) but keeping the article would create a dangerous precedent in my opinion. If the result is ‘keep’ and it becomes common knowledge, then every man and his dog will think this is an acceptable way to respond to an editor removing text from an article. There should be no deletion discussion, because the content fork should not have happened under these circumstances. As far as I am concerned this discussion should be taking place on the Talk page for the parent article. Perhaps this will create a policy. YSSYguy (talk)
 * See the approved WP:CFORK guideline, with particular reference to PoV forking and giving undue weight. absolutely has a point here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Having read the article, I don't see a PoV fork or undue weight to any particular entity. I quote from the referenced guideline: "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." (emphasis mine). I believe that this is exactly what was done here, and therefore, this should stay. A really paranoid android (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that your belief flatly contradicts; "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight)," and "In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies." &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because there is a disagreement about the content belonging to an article, doesn't mean that WP:NPOV was violated or that undue weight was given to some entity / entities within the article. Can you please point me to the areas in the article under discussion where these violations occurred? Because I don't see it. A really paranoid android (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, purrleeeze. made that judgement when they deleted the contentious material. The burden is on you to demonstrate significance, not on the rest of us to disprove it. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is read Jurryaany”s keep !vote, in which s/he basically says “I created this article because MilborneOne removed some material from the other article and I think the stuff he removed should be kept”. That seems pretty clear-cut to me, and all of the keep !votes here are disregarding the circumstances under which the article was created. YSSYguy (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What utter tosh! The article under discussion is not the article on which the original dispute took place. The discussion in this AFD centers around whether Eurofighter Typhoon procurement has a right to exist or not. Your claim, in this sub-thread, is that it shouldn't because it violates the WP:NOPV and WP:UNDUE weight policies. Make your case. Please cite the section(s) of the article which have this problem. Its not my burden to prove your statements.
 * MilborneOne may or may not have been correct in taking the actions that s/he did on the Eurofighter Typhoon. That proves nothing about the WP:NPOV or the WP:UNDUE status on Eurofighter Typhoon procurement. A really paranoid android (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly valid criticism. The WP:VERIFY policy, and particularly WP:ONUS, states that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." To give you a suitable forum for that I have started a discussion at Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon procurement. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per Icewhiz. Having a separate article for notable content such as this seems much better than either going into this level of detail in the article on the aircraft or excluding it altogether. Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2018 (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.