Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gripen vs Rafale vs Typhoon

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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gripen vs Rafale vs Typhoon

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

Comparisons of aircraft types are not really encyclopedic, comparisons are also original research, prod removed MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title may be changed. See for example "Competition between Airbus and Boeing". The purpose of the page is to facilitate the comparison, by providing elements, side by side. Because it's very complex matter, and reading the 3 helps to understand what are the big and more subtle différences .

And also to provide elements about the competition (which wins when countries decide) between these 3 aircrafts, which helps also to see what makes the differences.AirCraft (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Competition between Airbus and Boeing, aside from being a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, is an encyclopedic topic. To the best of my knowledge the "4.5 generation fighter sales battle" isn't a notable topic in and of itself, rather only being notable within the contest of the various countries' fighter competitions, where those are notable (and they likely aren't in all cases). Also...why only Rafale (so far, zero export orders), Typhoon, and Gripen (so far, the seeming 'winner' of the three)? Why not include the F-16C/D Block 42, F-16E/F, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the latest MiG-29 and Su-27/30/etc. variants? As it stands this is a Euro-centric view of a worldwide topic that, honestly, isn't encyclopedic and would be unlikely to become encyclopedic even if expanded to a worldwide arena. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But a comparison between ALL aircrafts would become very diffcult to do, and to read. One difference with AirbusVsBoeing : there's a market (WTO), while military aircrafts are usually designed for internal needs, than export. So a new aircraft is designed in function of existing aircraft in the country or group of countries (USA, Europe, Russia-India, Pakistan-China). Hence it would be relevant to do different pages for these different regions in the world. And of course some comparison with F-16 (for example) would be made in the 'european' page, when necessary, because F-16 is sort of a reference. AirCraft (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely 100% original research as it is not based on any references that actually compare the aircraft. As a secondary issue the article is very badly written, reads like a personal essay instead of an encyclopaedia article and is full or grammatical errors and empty sections. Even if retained it would have to be re-written from scratch. - Ahunt (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, it's just the beginning ! The real comparisons will come the next days ! It's simply necessary to give some basic informations before. AirCraft (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to have been created in very good faith by a new editor. However, I'm afraid that it's not an encyclopedic topic. We could have articles on the various procurement tenders the three fighters have competed for (noting that US and sometimes Russian aircraft have also been proposed for all of these tenders), but a match-up article isn't encyclopedic. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic, unnotable, and no clear reason for this specific set of intersections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unencyclopedic ? This page would give an occasion to see the results of 3 different designs (1 or 2 engines, size and weight, more multirole vs air dominance, etc.), at the same moment (1985). And it's just an example. AirCraft (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page could be renamed "Fighter design (european example)". One of my purposes is to understand how much these 3 fighters are complementary, and why noone is a clear winner, for the moment at least ; and what are the results of a specific choice : 1 or 2 engines, small or big, more or less unstable, high ceiling or not, more multirole or not, etc. I know this is difficult to do, but I really see it as encyclopedic : informations and knowledge to explain the world.AirCraft (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly well-intentioned, but this topic is simply impossible to write about without violations of WP:OR. It would be an interesting subject for a magazine feature, but it isn't a topic that's appropriate as an encyclopedia article. I hope the author doesn't get so sad he doesn't want to be at Wikipedia any longer, because I can see that he has lots to contribute. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While in good faith, the article consists of 100% original reasearch. Buggie111 (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a one-editor opinion piece that makes quite a few subjective conclusions in its body. While I hope not to be drawn into a point-counterpoint on those subjective issues, I wish to state that I do not see this article as meeting WP:NPOV, as well as WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyteto (talk • contribs)
Delete subjective opinion, irrelevant...., you name it. Maybe OK as a magazine article with a LOT of work, but not required in Wikipedia!!Petebutt (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically this is full of OR and synthesis - not an encyclopedia article. While some of the competions which these aircraft are entered into may be notable (we already have an article on the Indian one) a pure comparison article like this one isn;t needed.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment I just acted on a hunch, and decided to check if some of this content has been previously posted elsewhere. Many paragraphs have been entirely copy+pasted from other websites, which I believe infringes upon WP:Copyvio. The article's developer needs to learn the difference between sourcing information, and wholesale plagiarism - One is taking the content of a work exactly how it is and dumping it into your own text (not allowed) while the other is making reference to a piece of, or multiple peices of, information from that source, rewritten in original words; sections shouldn't just be ripped out of other websites and dumped onto Wikipedia - it isn't allowed, and brings Wikipedia into disrepute, especially when some of those sources aren't proper sources to begin with (Do not use forums for information - anyone can log into a forum and cry something, it doesn't make them right in the slightest); please only cite information from WP:Reliable Sources only. This article is a complete mess - It should be scrapped. Kyteto (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not encyclopedic and complete original research. --McSly (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.