Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Light fighter

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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Light fighter

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

Appears to be a neologism. All of the aircraft mentioned in this article except the Caudron C.714 (It's claim that it is a light fighter is uncited) are not called light fighters.The F-16 was born out of the Lightweight fighter program but is designated as a multirole fighter. Marcus Qwertyus 21:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the phrase "Light fighter" in Flight of 3 April 1953 and 15 May 1953 in referring to the Folland Gnat. Why that isn't in the article I don't know. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I wrote it in 2004, long before any of the current material existed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neologism? That'll be why the US Gov had the Lightweight Fighter program (referenceable up the wazoo) back in the 1960s. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the reference to infantry is the neologism. It is used only in the US, and generally refers to the 7th Division (Light) in the period between 1984 to 1993. The 7th kept the moniker until it was disbanded in 2006, but the term had already fallen from use after several attempts to re-start the concept with various Guard units fell apart. Everyone else, including the rest of the US, refers to this concept as "light infantry", and I can't image that this needs any more discussion than the fix I've already posted to the light fighter article... Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fighter aircraft. Not a neologism at all, but not notable enough for a stand-alone article IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to fighter aircraft. I don't think that there is enough to keep as a standalone article, but too much to delete outright. Sometimes classification is a bit subjective, but aircraft are surely known as light sometimes. I'll also note that in my mind, the term has a stronger connotation to highly mobile foot infantry than aircraft. bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - happy for a merge though if references can be added. Anotherclown (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The F-16 only became multitole after major changes from the original lightweight design. It is clearly spelled out in the article there are numerous light fighter designs throughout aircraft history, right until today. It is as distort from fighter as light bomber is from bomber. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 05:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fighter aircraft - note light infantry potential confusion problem as per Bahamut0013. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and disambiguate merge to fighter aircraft, and disambiguate between the class (described in "fighter aircraft") the program that the F-16 evolved from ("lightweight fighter program") and light infantry. 65.94.46.54 (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are the results of 2 minutes searching of the term "light fighter" in wiki articles. These include examples of aircraft that were referred to by their sponsors or builders as "light" or "lightweight" fighters, as well as (in the modern examples) aircraft that are referred to in that fashion by the industry press. Many of these links include such terminology in the first or second sentence of the article. WWII-era examples: Caudron C.714, Arsenal VG-33, Bell XP-77, Tucker XP-57, Douglas XP-48, Miles M.20, Martin-Baker MB 2, Ambrosini SAI.207, Ambrosini SAI.403, VEF I-16, [1] Cold war examples: Aero L-159 Alca, Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet, Cessna A-37 Dragonfly, BAC Strikemaster, Aermacchi MB-326, Aermacchi MB-339, Folland Gnat Modern examples: Sukhoi S-56, AMX International AMX, KAI T-50 Golden Eagle, Soko J-22 Orao, Soko G-4 Super Galeb, Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master, Yakovlev Yak-130, [ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/08/air-force-to-get-new-light-fighter/], [2], [3], [4], [5] So: clearly not a neologism, widely used by everyone involved, clearly many examples even if the current article doesn't include them. Type the term into Google Books, for instance. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term has had a fair amount of use for some time; it's not just a neologism or a label for a single aircraft type. The article does need some work but deletion is not the answer. I would have said "merge and redirect" but I think there's enough material out there for a modest standalone article. bobrayner (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—a search shows this term to have sufficient usage in aviation-related publications to be considered notable.—RJH (talk) 16:35, 20 December 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.