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. Nom withdrawn. I will help create List of fighter aircraft 2.0. Marcus Qwertyus 16:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fighter aircraft[edit]

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

The question was raised at Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#Fifth generation ? whether the grouping fighters jets by generation was a legitimate comparison. Grouping articles by category such as Category:International fighter aircraft 2000-2009 etc. seems to be the better alternative. In any case the original research needs to go. Marcus Qwertyus 16:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 16:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to start that my full proposal is to get rid of this manual list (and all listings of fighters by whatever "generations" might be) and rely on the automatically generated by-decade fighter category pages. Hcobb (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while I agree that the "generations" concept seems to be a marketing ploy by the manufacturers, I don't think it necessarily qualifies as OR to define an aircraft as a member of one particular generation, especially since it seems the majority of entries have a reference. That said, I would prefer to see the list remove that organization scheme, since it's not particularly usefule and leads to the infamous Apple v. Orange comparison; I would favor a tabled list that can sort through names/designations, dates, manufacturers, and countries of origin (which would, for one, invalidate the "duplicates category" argument). I'd even be willing to put in the gruntwork if the nominator withdraws (just drop me a note). bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needs cleanup, not deletion. I would also favor a tabular format that isn't grouped by nebulous "generation". SnottyWong ^communicate 18:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The argument seems to be more over the term "generation" and how the planes are grouped. If there is consensus on how the aircraft should be grouped then I believe the page should be altered, but definitely not deleted. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the article needs cleaning up and verifying, that is obvious. But I think this is a useful list; just because it is in a poor state does not necessarily mean it needs deleting. wacky wace 18:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The controversy seems to be about the "generation" concept, not the article itself. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the list to excise the excessive in-article lists in Fighter Aircraft. I'm not a big fan of the "generation" concept, but I maintained it when I created the list because I was moving an existing list rather than creating a new one. It's obvious that this kind of list is appropriate, though obviously it could be categorized differently if the "generation" thing isn't a good idea. SDY (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems a very viable list and any problems with its current structure should be resolved through regular editing and discussion. I note that there hasn't been any discussion of this on the article's talk page, which would be a good place to start. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone is interested in improving the article, please see Talk:List of fighter aircraft#Proposed reformat of article. Thanks. SnottyWong ^chat 21:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons mentioned above. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But sort per decade not per generation.Nicob1984 (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2010 (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.