Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jet fighter generations


 * 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   no consensus. v/r - TP 01:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Jet fighter generations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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)
 * The template still has the same flaw in in that is being criticised - uncited content. Where are these dates coming from? Who said each generation ends on exactly that year, and the next starts on the proceeding year? Without any formal basis for these very neat little groupings being anything more than OR, the generation 'years' should be removed; they're subjective, but more than that, they're not even trying to say from who's opinion the subjective perspective comes from, thus we have no basis to say that the subjective opinion is definitive or notable. Who put these dates together? Kyteto (talk) 13:35, 24 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)
 * Our convention is that where there is a clear sub-article (i.e. linked through a hatnote, as here) then we don't require clear notability to be explicitly visible for the overall parent section, where this is provided through the sub-article. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete like all the "generation" fighter stuff mainly made up and uncited. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 21 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, B  music  ian  06:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)



Delete - because the generations cannot be clearly determined as different manufacturers weasel-word their definitions to suit their products, so any list is necessarily vague, subjective and at risk of advertising or other partiality. An automatic cruft-collector, as the repeated debates amply demonstrate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Carrite. In response to Hasteur's nom "There is no central registry of features", then there doesn't need to be. What we need is coverage by post facto sources, and that's there aplenty. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - un-encyclopaedic content and there are articles already out there that cover this adequately, and are also probably candidates for deletion as being of very little value.Petebutt (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - As per this reliable source, http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj90/win90/1win90.htm the listed generations are totally wrong. (The F-16 isn't even listed under sixth generation jet fighters.) Hcobb (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are differing scales to divide the generations, the correct action is to bring this up in the article, come to a consensus what system to use, create a section explaining the different systems therefore improving the article. An incorrect action is, it's wrong, it should be deleted. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If that were possible, which it is not. When 'generations' is differently defined by each manufacturer for each new plane to suit their marketing requirements - to emphasize its qualities over all others, and to minimize its deficiencies, then no amount of 'improving' is possible. To put it plainly: the categories of 'jet fighter generation' are not well-founded, so any article relying on them is a house built on sand. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 triple relisting is not usually done, however, I do believe there is some more to be found here. There are concerns over weather this article is a WP:SALAT or not, if referenceing is sufficient or not, and if the subject is encyclopedic in scope or not. Unfortunately, none of these questions are answered on this AfD with a clear consensus yet. Let's hope we can come to something more solid. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I express my abject sorrow at the fact that this article has been relisted AGAIN on such a flimsy grounds. It is a shame that after the discussion has very clearly waned and all the reasonable arguments and counter arguments have been used an admin, who is charged with reading the consensus and applying Wikipedia Policy is still unable to render a reasonable consensus. Hasteur (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete It's basically a good article putting forth a particular generation system and generation delineation that was created by the editor.  Nice reading elsewhere, in Wikipedia we call that OR.  North8000 (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly (though I wonder about calling it a "good article" ;-} ). The list is not a WP:SALAT because
 * 1) It's WP:OR
 * 2) The classification into generations is not agreed, unstable, and has commercial (POV, ADV) overtones
 * 3) There is actually no referencing, with one dead link; likely no satisfactory sources could be provided.
 * Therefore the article is unsalvageable despite the ILIKEIT arguments to the contrary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just clarifying, I meant a good article for elsewhere, not a good article per wikipedia standards. North8000 (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Okay, let's stop clowning around. There is NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE a front end index of articles on fighter jet generations in the face of standing articles on each generation. The argument is made that the whole notion of generations is prohibited "Original Research." Fine. Let's close this as NO CONSENSUS for a moment... Somebody who feels the entire notion of generations is OR should do a group nomination of all the generations pieces at AfD — and let's go over them. If those are ruled OR and deleted, then removing this piece becomes an easy call. If those stay, then this should stay. Reasonable? Carrite (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment/Keep: Carrite's proposal seems reasonable. But even if the article should be morphed into something summary-style that notes the fallibility of the "generation" terminology, the terminology itself is notable. It's important to add that the claim the article should be deleted because it's just industry terminology is also original research (just going in the other direction). --Pusillanimous 18:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, user HCobb has provided a source which purports to show the classification is wrong; so at the very least (without going beyond our sources) we know that the classification is disputed and may be unstable: no OR involved there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. The thought behind my comment (as noted by The Devil's Advocate below) is that because it is so widely used, to pit the sources claiming that generational terminology is incorrect may end up being WP:SYNTH. Your point (and the lower one in response to The Devil's Advocate is spot on though; we must tread carefully. I'm tempted to say that a keep for this article that allows us to add referenced commentary noting the controversial nature of the terminology itself is the best course of action. :) Thanks for your points. --Pusillanimous (talk&bull;contribs) 08:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This categorization of fighters is discussed on its own in several places:  . Some editors may not like this form of categorization (honestly wasn't aware of the hostility towards it until I saw this Afd), but ultimately it does get widely used and is therefore notable and worthy of inclusion here.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's not use terms like 'hostility' - I for one feel none, and none of the 'delete' comments by other editors appear in that way to me. There are several citations in this discussion already which cast legitimate doubt on the categorization, so it appears that some of the listed articles ought to be revised carefully, at the very least. Articles on widely-used but ill-founded categories - such as different types of human - are not completely impossible but have to be written with extreme caution, and without seeming to endorse the categorisation itself: thus you can have a legitimate article on Racism, if it is neutral and well-cited, but not on topics like 'the broad-faced Lappish type'. If a categorisation is disputed, then a list which appears to endorse it is ill-advised. with best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fighter generations are a widely-used categorization so having a list on them is a good idea. An actual category would be more of a problem since those don't provide much information. Here we can speak to the controversy. Additional sources:  .--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bushranger. The generation concept is a neologism and is not well-defined.  Many aircraft incorporate elements from multiple generations and don't fit squarely into the definition for a single generation.  List of fighter aircraft used to be organized by generation (see ), but it was transformed into a far more effective sortable table.  &mdash;SW&mdash; converse 19:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look over the sources I provided above you will see that there actually is some general agreement on what falls into a specific generation. Any attempt at separating new iterations in a product line into generations will have some cases where the exact placement is unclear. The concept has some clearly established notability and is widely-used, therefore being worthy of an article. Perhaps the less-sourced articles on the earlier generations could be merged into this article with a general introduction noting some dispute about the origin of the concept and its application (one of the sources notes a unique difference of terminology in China, for instance).--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - article is effectively unreferenced and the related articles seem much the same (save 4th gen article). Article starts off by saying the terminology is unclear but doesn't actually address the issue. Smacks of OR all round. Burn the lot. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. Being mostly unreferenced does not mean it should be deleted, especially if references are readily available.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a widely used concept in the defence literature, and the Royal Australian Air Force's Air Power Development Centre has published a two page document here which describes what it sees the key features of each generation as being, so the concept is taken seriously by professionals. Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think if anyone looks at the delete votes, the argument is essentially that this article is original research and uncited. Another objection is that there is no clear definition of the generations. The above sources show that the article can easily be improved to address the OR and citation concerns and they also show a clear definition used by multiple reliable sources. So, I think there is no reason to delete this article and it should instead be kept and time allowed for improvements. I would be more than willing to step in to make those improvements.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What kind of improvement do you expect in an article that has been at AfD for almost a month now. I'm sorry, but if there was improvement to be made so that the article could be kept, it would have already been made.  This constitutes a WP:SOFIXIT challenge to The Devil's Advocate and all the people who are voting keep on the grounds that the article can be improved. Hasteur (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't feel comfortable fixing an article if I can't be assured the content will be around a day later. Personally, I only came upon this AfD after the third relisting and have been pre-occupied with another matter during most of this past week. Saying "no one has made improvements" as an argument for there being no room for improvement is absurd. Many are not bold enough to take action or just don't have enough time or experience to take action on a specific article. Can you look at the sources above and honestly say those cannot be used to make improvements to the article?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So willing to talk it into the ground and diminish the quality of the entire collection of articles, but now willing to put forth the effort to actually improve it. I see how it is. Hasteur (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not even remotely what I said. I am willing to put forth the effort, if I think that effort will not be wasted.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Put in the effort and it's more likely it'll get kept. Don't and all you are doing is talking the article into the ground, diluting the policies of WP, and making a lesser WP. An article should be improved regardless of it's likelihood of being kept and it's a shame that you think it can be improved  without actually doing any work on said article. Hasteur (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am saying it can be improved because there are enough reliable sources for a good-sized and verified article. However, again, I would like to know those contributions won't get erased a day later before I am willing to put in the effort.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - perhaps this list article AfD should be closed as No consensus, as originally proposed by Carrite? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I really oppose that kind of pandering. If the supporters put their editing skills to the test and improve the article in the month or more it's been up for discussion then it could be easily a close.  As of right now it still suffers the problems that it did when I nominated it a month ago.  I'm willing to accept a lot of good faith on articles, but when an article doesn't get improved after multiple solicitations and cajolings for improvement, I have to wonder if it can be improved.  Should the discussion be closed as No Consensus, I'll give a reasonable time for the article to improve, but we do need to uphold the standards here. Hasteur (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, alright, it is kind of ridiculous but I will just move those sources provided above into the article and that will satisfy like 90% of the delete votes here. It won't satisfy the people who don't like the subject but those votes don't count anyway.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment since we have articles on each generation of jet fighter, and those articles are not up for deletion, a navigation article is at least needed, so an article with this title either exists as an article or a set index or a disambiguation page. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2012 (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.