Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2037 Bomber

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. JGHowes ^talk 22:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2037 Bomber[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:COATRACK article about what Clinton-era Congressional crystal gazers thought the U.S. bomber fleet should look like in 2037. The concept (if you can even call it that) was dropped within a year in favor of a stop-gap solution. Nothing worth merging. Schierbecker (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no article is perfect, more sources could be added, but this one is adequately sourced. XavierItzm (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is being nominated for deletion because of its lack of notability. Quality is irrelevant. Your comment seems out of place. Schierbecker (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that you just vote keep on every AfD with the same boilerplate argument, whether it fits or not. Makes sense now. Schierbecker (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great ad-hominem, instead of addressing the issue, which is that the article is well sourced enough, with coverage across years in media such as Popular_Science, Wired (magazine), etc. We go by the sources here. XavierItzm (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly merge into Long Range Strike Bomber with a redirect. Doesn't need to exist on its own. Intothat darkness 18:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Intothatdarkness: Would B-2 Spirit make a better target? I attempted to accurately summarize the program with this edit. The slightly more contemporaneous Next-Generation Bomber would be my second pick. Schierbecker (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with the Next-Generation Bomber if we're looking for something more contemporaneous. Intothat darkness 13:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Next-Generation Bomber. Not enough on its own but will improve the Next-Generation Bomber page. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to most applicable other article. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - there is nothing on the TP about a WP:COATRACK issue.
It is false that the concept was "dropped in one year". The article itself makes it clear that it was the official policy of the US Air Force from 1999 to 2006 to have a 2037 Bomber; i.e. from the 1999 Bomber Roadmap to the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. On these grounds alone the AfD ought to be rejected with prejudice.
Furthermore, consider the sources over the years (among the other sources in the article):

If we go by sources, the notability of the topic is well established.XavierItzm (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have USAF sources pinning the death of the "2037 bomber" much earlier. The 1999 White Paper on on Long Range Bombers (March 1999) set the 2037 goalpost. However, by the time the 1999 bomber study was revisited in 2001, USAF thinking had accelerated the timeline by four to seven years the White Paper on Long-Range Strike (November 2001).

The last bomber service life analysis was accomplished in FY98-FY99. This study indicated a Mission Area Assessment was required in 2013 to support a bomber replacement IOC date of 2037. However, changes in planned force structure and deletion of most B-52 low-level flying may have invalidated previous service life conclusions and require new analysis. The Air Force is beginning the Long-Range Strike Aircraft X (LRSA-X) study to examine bomber replacement timelines. Study goal is to start an acquisition program in the 2012 to 2015 timeframe.

It is par for the course that neither the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review nor the 2006 QDR you mentioned pay any homage to any prior development efforts or timeline.

There is also no evidence that any development work began before the timeline was fast-tracked. The 1999 white paper said that defining the Mission Area Assessment—the very first milestone—would need to begin by 2013. If this bomber was alive c. 2006, which it wasn't, then development wouldn't begin for seven more years. All the 1999 white paper does is ask lawmakers and Pentagon officials to hold their pennies for a new bomber project 15 years down the road. It does not a development program make. This bomber never existed. Schierbecker (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When the article was nominated, it had six sources from 1999 to 2008. It now has twice as many sources, ranging from 1999 to 2016. It really is incredible how sources written in three separate decades, i.e., the 1990's, the 2000's, and the 2010's keep citing the 2037 Bomber. This might be a WP:HEY case. In any event, no evidence was ever raised for the original claim for deletion: that this was a WP:COATRACK and a subject that "was dropped within one year". XavierItzm (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to do better than these sources.

Wired, 2007; A blog post which does no original reporting, quotes a Defense News article's source, an analyst, saying “I don’t believe in Santa Claus and I don’t believe in the 2037 bomber. It’s a mythical beast. It’s just not there. I don’t know why the Air Force even talks about it.” This source was being used on the Wikipedia entry to claim that specific technologies would be included in the bomber. The author's apparent inability to separate their own speculation and opinion from Defense News's reporting makes this an unreliable source. Moreover, Air Force sources I have read do not make specific claims about technology readiness in the 2037 timeframe. Defining mission requirements would not happen until before 2013, as I have already stated. This should have been a tip-off to you.

Popular Science, 2009; mentions the mythical 2037 bomber in passing but goes on at length to describe the 2018 bomber competition. It seems the editor who added that source failed to read the Popular Science article properly and thought the unmanned, undetectable fully-fleshed out future aircraft was the 2037 bomber. *facepalm*

Future Timeline Celeb birthday/horoscope-tier web portal that contains a WP:CIRCULAR reference back to Wikipedia and no original reporting.

This two-page French Air Force brief from 2015 is highly dubious because it is vague and does no original reporting.

The US Air Force, for its part, predicted in a controversial 1999 report (Bomber Roadmap) that the replacement of the B-52H (entered service in 1961) and B-2A (1993) bombers by a new generation will not take place until 2037.

The service later changed course in 2004 saying it would need a new medium bomber from 2020 (without canceling the 2037 Bomber program) in order to cope with the proliferation of new
anti-aircraft systems (anti-access / area-denial)[...]

The provenience of this information from events that supposedly occurred nine years prior is not explained. The claim that the bomber was alive until 2004, especially when it contradicts contemporaneous American reporting on the Long-Range Strike white paper three years earlier, is highly suspect.

Stuffing an article with irrelevant sources is idea laundering, not improving the encyclopedia. Schierbecker (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I agree that the source futuretimeline that was there was not a WP:RS, and which someone had baselessly added in 2017. See, you really help improve the quality of the article when you constructively edit instead of nuking.XavierItzm (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge - More than enough coverage and sources for an article. (This could be covered in another article if needed.) -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2014,2016 and 2018. This article was previously merged and then demerged from Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit in January 2021. In addition to the unsupported nom claims of WP:COATRACK and of "dropped within a year", it is clear procedures were not followed and no WP:BEFORE was carried out. XavierItzm (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no consensus (or no discussion either), the Jan. 2021 attempt does not count as valid attempt imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction: The content I summarized on the B-2 Spirit page is still present in the form I wrote. The redirect was the only edit that was reversed. Schierbecker (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note - per WP:HEYMANN, the article ought to not be deleted. It's had 55 edits since it was nominated to AfD. At nomination the article was 4,193 bytes. It is now 11,503 bytes. Since nomination, the article has been edited by 11 different editors, by my count. It has more than twice as many sources. Sources have been eliminated where warranted. And this is not to mention the serious vices in the original nomination, which include lack of a WP:BEFORE, unsubstantiated claims, etc. XavierItzm (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, I've stalked this page for well over a decade and spent several days trying to find any evidence that this concept was ever pursued beyond one service life projection 22 years ago. I didn't parachute into this AfD with no understanding of the issues. You did. Schierbecker (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, buddy. So you should know that per Wikipedia policy you were required to check the repeated attempts to delete or merge the page in 2014, 2016, 2018, and January 2021, all of which failed. But it appears you failed to do a basic WP:BEFORE. You may or may not have parachuted in, but you certainly didn't follow procedure. Besides, you continue to misrepresent that from 1999 to 2006 the Air Force's official plan was to develop a 2037 Bomber.XavierItzm (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you freaking kidding me?? This article was PROPOSED for deletion twice and nominated for Speedy Deletion once, all by the same user (who is now blocked). Contesting a Proposed Deletion or Speedy Deletion does not carry any prejudice against further discussion regarding merging or deleting an article at AfD. RTFM.

The termination date of 2001 is sourced within the article, but go off sis. Schierbecker (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have struck and removed my 'Merge' vote. Article now explains a clear concept. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sourcing has improved, but the WP:COATRACK issue identified in the delete rationale remains. I do not think we should have an article entitled 2037 Bomber since not only does no such bomber exist, no specific plans for one were ever drawn up. What is of substance in the article is documentation of the requirements planning of US air defence policy, and neither the title nor the categories the article belongs to should suggest otherwise. I'm open to renaming this article, but rather than have this article remain under this title, I would !vote to merge it to Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider as the least distant article, under which the material could exist under the history section. Note further that if we cannot find several RSes that refer to this idea under the term 2037 Bomber, then the term falls foul of our policy per WP:NEOLOGISM; specifically, the Congressional sources I looked at do not support this as an established usage. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"2037 bomber" has a fair amount of common usage in primary sources, but it shouldn't be capitalized as a proper noun. Schierbecker (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2021 (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.