Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navalised Eurofighter


 * 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 and merge to Eurofighter Typhoon variants. Carrying out redirect presently, the merger can be handled editorially. lifebaka++ 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Navalised Eurofighter

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A lengthy article that is mostly speculation, is WP:ESSAY-ish, and contains WP:OR-smelling commentary about possible cancellation of the F-35 and about a proposed variant of Eurofighter that has been discussed, rejected, and is just an "idea" now. Now, aircraft that are just "on the drawing board" are notable, but a minor variant of an existing type should be covered in the type's article (Eurofighter Typhoon) or existing subarticle (Eurofighter Typhoon variants) instead of writing an entirely new article - which was sourced in part to discussion-board debates, and is heavy in WP:CRYSTAL and weasel words ("A Navalised Eurofighter, F-18 E/F Super Hornet or the French Rafale remain the most likely fallback canidiates..."). There's very little here, honestly, that belongs on Wikipedia, and what little there is can be covered in the existing articles mentioned above. The editor gets an E for Effort (and if I may indulge my own personal WP:POV, kudos for supporting an alternative to the horror that is Dave-B!), but alas I don't think this is an article Wikipedia needs at this time. The Bushranger One ping only 16:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 16:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 16:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per branger Someone65 (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge what little is worth saving (probably not much more than to state that there was a bit of support for this idea) to Eurofighter Typhoon variants and redirect there (it might not be a very common search term, but it does seem possible and redirects are cheap). Totally agree with the nom, though: fraught with OR, CRYSTAL, and poor sources.  bahamut0013  words deeds 17:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as clearly outlined by bushranger, might be worth a paragraph in the Typhoon article as a proposal but doesnt need this article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge Merge or Keep Merge the good stuff in to Eurofighter Typhoon variants or Keep.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 19:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge, without prejudice to recreation in a better format. Some interesting points made here, but Wikipedia is for summing up facts about things written in other sources, rather than putting your own take on things. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. I see 20 references there, so at least that content should be merged into the main article. De728631 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of those references are either not reliable sources, or have nothing to do with Typhoon. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, on a second look you're right. There are an awful lot of blogs among the sources. De728631 (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge - non-existent variant of an existing aircraft, not notable enough for a separate article. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that it is notable enough for its own article providing there are enough good references in the article.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 01:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge into Eurofighter Typhoon variants per Bahamut001. Totally agree with nom about WP:CRYSTAL. Scanty evidence that the variant is actually being considered. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Disagree concerning WP:CRYSTAL and there is lots of evidence (when doing a Google search) that several countries have considered the navalised typhoon, notably the UK, India, and Italy.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 01:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete Certainly does not warrant a page on its own!!!!!!188.65.183.52 (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is surprising to see this article pounced on within hours of it being finalised on Monday, and flagged up for deletion.

Before any decision is made on deleting this article, the above individuals should declare any interest or involvement in the UK or US Defence community.

At the end of the day F-35 is the Worlds largest (some say $380bn) weapons programme, and it would suit the UK & US defence industry & governments just fine if all mention of Navalised EUROFIGHTER (as a credible alternative to the UK's buy of F-35 aircraft) is brushed under the carpet, out of sight of the UK taxpayer, as it has been in recent years.

Navalised EUROFIGHTER was and remains a credible alternative to F-35. This is fact (not opinion). It was studied in detail by the UK MOD in detail. Again, fact not opinion. The costs & timescales of the F-35 programme have ballooned since the UK signed up to it in Jan 2001. Fact, not fiction.

In fact, if you go through this article sentence-by-sentence, line-by-line, you will find that the vast majority is what is said is pure fact. The rest is balanced and fair comment. If anyone has doubts on this, they should contact the UK Secretary of State for Defence for confirmation, before dismissing it as 'speculation' or requesting its deletion.

PS == As regards "reliable" and "unreliable" sources, if there have been identical points/facts raised by several different authors on on-line discussions 4 or 5 years ago, and they corroborate each other, and haven't been challenged as false or misleading by others, it is fair to presume they are "reliable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independent2011 (talk • contribs)


 * ...There is no cabal. We're not in the defense industry, we're Wikipedians. Frankly I find that accusation hilarious, considering that in the nom I specifically described the F-35B as horrific - which it is, I would love to see 'Dave' bite the dust. But I don't let my WP:POV color my opinions of a Wikipedia articke.


 * As for the references, thre's four "Letters to the Editor" used as sources. Letters to the editor are of questionable reliability at best. And there were four references to discussion-board threads in the original article which have been removed. Your statement that there have been identical points/facts raised by several different authors on on-line discussions 4 or 5 years ago, and they corroborate each other, and haven't been challenged as false or misleading by others, it is fair to presume they are "reliable". doesn't hold water - comments on an on-line discussion board, regardless of corroboration or challenging (or lack thereof in the latter case), are never reliable sources.


 * As for you will find that the vast majority is what is said is pure fact - Pure fact can still be WP:SYNTH if facts are strung together to form an opninion not in the sources. Not saying that's been done here, although the comparisions to F-35 and the Super Bug look like it, but your statement that The rest is balanced and fair comment. - you've just out-and-out stated that the article contains WP:OR. Wikipedia is NOT a place for "balanced and fair comment". Verifiability, not truth, is the standard for inclusion; also Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. "Comment[ary]" is explicity something not to be included in Wikipedia. ...and, all the above aside, the article is still WP:CRYSTAL and has no reason to be an article on its own as opposed to a sub-section of Eurofighter Typhoon variants. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Independent2011: You are way off-base here, please see WP:AGF. The vast majority of commenters here are Wikiproject Aircraft members of longstanding. The question being debated is not the WP:The Truth but the subject's notability as a separate article.- Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Disclosure. I'm not a WikiProject Aircraft member but I am a pilot (PPL). Have amended my vote from 'Merge' to 'Merge or Keep'. I don't think it is fair to claim WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OR because all the article is talking about is a variant that has been discussed at length in the past. Referring to past discussions isn't "looking in to the future with a crystal ball" and any references that refer to past discussions are fair references. I think that the main issue here is that there is a lot of content in this article that is not referenced (although there are quite a few references). If the content could be backed up thoroughly with good quality references then there is no reason why the "Navalised Eurofighter" can't be an article on its own.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 20:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is the majority of the article gives the air of a "this is why we need Navalised Eurofighter" essay. I've added a paragraph to the Variants article about the navalised version; there's no reason it can't just be there - that's what that article is for. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is one possible reason. If there is too much well-referenced content in Navalised Eurofighter then there will have to be a stand-alone article (and an abridged version of that would be housed within the Variants article. There are no shortage of references out there for the navalised typhoon and there is more than enough for a stand-alone article. Have added a few references a few minutes ago just as an example of what is available.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 00:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to see somebody taking the bull by the horns in a rescue attempt. :) The article does look better, but needs a lot more work to be a viable article. But it's a good start. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Tagged for rescue to encourage others to help with the improvements.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 12:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge - Bushranger's nomination makes a lot of sense. A minor variant of an existing type does not require its own article.  A discussion about this minor variant can fit nicely at Eurofighter Typhoon and/or Eurofighter Typhoon variants.  Snotty Wong   confabulate 18:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. The Bushranger One ping only 18:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect not notable enough for a separate article. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Interesting that a naval Typhoon was considered at stages, however this is already covered at the QE class & Eurofighter Typhoon articles. It's disturbing the amount of "letters to the editor" are used as reliable sources! Mark83 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do all conspiracy theories warrant mention?? Most do not as this page doesn't.188.65.183.52 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen (and Ladies ?). Please try and welcome 'outsiders'/newcomer daring to place a new article on WIKIPEDIA. After all, WIKIPEDIA is meant to be reasonably free & open, not an exclusive club. And it is the easiest thing in the World to use Wikipedias "rules" and associated formal terminology to justify deletion of a worthwhile Wikipedia article.

Better though that we all work together to resolve the differences, to take out anything that you think is causing you particular concern/upset. With this in mind I would propose the following amendments:

- 2nd para:  Delete from 2nd sentence 'In the United Kingdom...' onwards.
 * HISTORY:


 * RENEWED CALLS TO NAVALISE EUROFIGHTER IN PLACE OF F-35 (2010-2011):
 * 1st Para -  delete sentence beginning:  'Separately, in January 2011 it emerged that the UK plans to dispose of its initial 53 (Tranche I) EUROFIGHTERs....'
 * Delete 3rd para 'Were F-18 able to operate from...'.
 * Delete last para beginning 'However, the following factors arguably tend to swing the argument....' and the 5 bullets that lie under it.

If you do this, what is left is (in my opinion) statement of fact and non-controversial. If you can then help by adding references to support what is left (which you can no doubt do, being aviation experts/enthusiasts) we will probably end up with a half-decent article.

I strongly feel though that this should stay as a standalone article, as:
 * there is pitifully little in the way of authorative on-line info on Navalised EUROFIGHTER, and I think it deserves a position of reasonable prominence.
 * the issues relating to Navalised EUROFIGHTER are fundamentally different/separate from those of land-based EUROFIGHTER.
 * it is a discrete subject matter that bridges between EUROFIGHTER and the QUEEN ELIZABETH Carriers.

I offer up the above in a spirit of good faith -  I trust you will receive it likewise. Thank you.


 * Comment Have carried out amendments as recommended by Independent above (with one exception that was well referenced that I abridged). Thank you for doing that Independent.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 12:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment to Independent2011 It looks like the result of this AfD will be a merge in to "Eurofighter variants". That's no bad thing. As more information is added to the Navalised Eurofighter section, in Eurofighter variants, it will ultimately have to be spun off as an independent article on its own because "Eurofighter variants" will become too bulky and most of the content will be Navalised Eurofighter oriented. You've contributed a useful article either way. They will also direct searches for "Navalised Eurofighter" automatically to "Eurofighter variants".  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 12:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks 'Nipsonanomhmata'. I notice that the references justifying the statement that (post-2010 SDR) there have been renewed calls for Navalised EUROFIGHTER to be reconsidered have been deleted. I suggest that at least one of these is reinstated (e.g.  the 9th Nov 2010 'SCOTSMAN' article on Lord Hesketh's resignation). Having gone to all this effort (as a newcomer) to make a constructive contribution to WIKIPEDIA, and address your concerns, I sincerely hope that the "Delete - per nomination" request is rejected !  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independent2011 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So do I. Have reinstated the reference in a suitable place that was deleted by another editor because it was not in the right place. All future editing discussions to be held on the relevant talkpage (for now it's the Navalised Eurofighter talkpage).  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 12:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If you go to the 'Global Defence' web site (http://geneva-globaldefence.blogspot.com/2011/02/navalised-version-of-typhoon-to-be.html) you will see that Navalised EUROFIGHTER seems to be very much alive as an option, at least for the Indian Navy, and is being actively plugged at 'Aero India 2011'. I therefore suggest it might be worth adding this web page as a reference.
 * Comment

This web page also includes a very nice artist's impression of Navalised EUROFIGHTER flying past a carrier (tail hook down !). I'm not sure how to get the necessary permission, but it might be worth trying to get this picture included in the WIKPEDIA entry ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independent2011 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Please sign your post, thanks. The source is a blog and not a reliable source so it cant be used. MilborneOne 13:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

-- What I would say in response is that 'India Defence Review' is saying the same thing (http://www.indiandefencereview.com/defence-industry/BAE-Systems-supports-the-Typhoon-bid-for-MMRCA.html), and I would argue that that is a reliable source. The art work from 'Global Defence' web site in any event should be of interest. INDEPENDENT 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independent2011 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the [Citation Needed] for the last sentence of the article's 'History' section. The correct citation is the letter published in the 'Glasgow Herald' newspaper on 26th Jan 2011 (http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/herald-letters/letters-wednesday-26-january-2011-1.1081904), which lays down the key arguments referred to. Before anyone rolls out the argument that the letter is not a reliable source, I would point out that it was written by a competent marine industry professional, and was subject to full scrutiny editorial control by the HERALD (phone them and ask them!), and as such meets WIKIPEDIA requirements for a reliable source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources).

I would also make the following observations:

1) Look at the recent Wikipedia United Kingdom Deletion Nominations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/United_Kingdom) and you will see that Navalised EUROFIGHTER is lumped in for deletion alongside 'Giblets F.C', 'List of bus routes in Downham Market', and 'Leeds Labour Students'.  Absolutely nonsensical that what is arguably the UK's main fallback to F-35 (and a key contender for Indian requirements) is being "buried" in this way.

2) Look at the recent Aircraft Articles added to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_articles_(Aircraft) ) and you will see that a whole raft of non-descript aircraft of yesteryear have been added, many of dubious & arguably un-noteworthy relevance to mainstream aviation history, many with woefully inadequate/incomplete references.  Why then does the the one new aircraft article of key relevance to the 21st Century (i.e. Navalised EUROFIGHTER), incidentally an article written by a WIKIPEDIA "outsider", the one new article that the UK and US defence communities might not welcome, become the target for such hostility ?  Why do experienced WIKIPEDIANS jump in with negative responses to my constructively-intended contributions, suggestions & amendents within minutes of them being posted.  I have gone out of my way to help arrive at an informative, impartial & well-referenced article that is acceptable to you all, but still detect distinct air of "not welcome in our club".

Sorry guys, if the 'Farman F.1020', 'Walraven 2', 'Chotia Weedhopper' and 'Istra Ezhik ("Hedgehog")' deserve their own articles, then so does Navalised EUROFIGHTER, and as far as I'm concerned you undermine your credibility if you claim otherwise. Independent2011 (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a completely spurious argument, you are just showing your lack of familiarity with aviation as a subject. For instance the Chotia Weedhopper has been in production for decades and over 13,000 aircraft flown; it is one of the most produced aircraft of all time. The Navalized Eurofighter is a proposed concept, with none ordered or flying. - Ahunt (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Invididual aircraft types are presumed notable and (if referencable) deserve their own pages under Wikipedia's notability standards. Individual aircrft variants are not presumed notable and deserve to be covered under the parent type's page, unless there is sufficent information to allow for their own article (see General Dynamics F-111C, for instance). The Navalised Eurofighter has not flown, has had no hardware cut, and is very much still in the "back of a napkin" stage. At this stage in the project, the appropriate venue for coverage on the type is Eurofighter Typhoon variants. Once "Sea Typhoon" (Cyclone?) is in operational service, then it can be considered for expansion to its own article. It has nothing to do with being "not welcome in our club", and nothing to do with not liking the type ((see also WP:TINC); it has everything to do with following established Wikipedia procedures and established notability standards. The old-days types are notable enough for their own articles (also, things are not intristically more notable just because they are new); Navalised Eurofighter is not. But, as noted, that does not mean it isn't notable enough for coverage at all - it is. As a variant of Typhoon, on the Typhoon variants page. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

But what you "WIKIPEDIANS" have so far choosen to "merge" into 'Eurofighter Variants' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon_variants) is a tiny proportion of what is included in the Navalised EUROFIGHTER article -  swathes of perfectly valid text and references deleted. From my point of view it looks like that "merge" effectively involves deleting my perfectly valid contribution, replace it with weasel words, and tuck it away down the bottom of what is already a very long article (with a minor heading no less), beneath a list of minor RAF Eurofighter versions, where it won't get noticed. In the process the fact that Navalised EUROFIGHTER remains an serious fallback option to the UK's F-35 requirements, that it was studied in detail by the UK MOD and is still being touted as a solution to UK & Indian requirements is being utterly disguised.

You argue that "concept" aircraft such as Navalised EUROFIGHTER don't deserve their own page. Why then does 'HOTOL' (the abortive 1980s British space aircraft -  arguably "pie-in-the-sky") get its own page ? By your line of argument it should just be dismissed as a one-line "could-have-been" on the 'British space programme' page ! Independent2011 (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because HOTOL was an independent project, whereas Sea Typhoon is just a variant. During the development of Sea Harrier, had Wikipedia existed then, it too would have been "tucked away" in the Hawker Siddeley Harrier article. As for the amount here vs on the variants page, that's because the majority of the content here seemed to be "ifs" regarding the carriers, Dave-B/C and the Super Bug, as opposed to content about the Sea Typhoon itself. But, if you're concerned about the amount of coverage on Eurofighter Typhoon variants, why not add some there? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 9 February 2011 (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.