Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of main battle tanks by generation

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The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of main battle tanks by generation[edit]

This scheme of MBT generations is not supported by any reliable or verifiable source, nor even adequately described in the self-published foreign-language web sites cited, so the list is based on original research. Discussion at the article and the Wikiproject yielded nothing. —Michael Z. 2008-07-27 17:32 z

Withdrawing this request, thanks to developments noted below. Thanks for your opinion, and sorry to take your time. Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 23:01 z

Delete Original research, unless some other source gives the same breakdown. Tanks have been around almost 100 years now. Wouldn't you expect there to be more than 3 "generations"? -Northwestgnome (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Main battle tank refers to the general type of tank design prevalent since the end of WWII. The idea of three MBT generations is not impossible, but the fact is that references to such are rare and obscure, and apparently no one has ever defined them. —Michael Z. 2008-07-27 18:25 z
Delete - as inherent OR --T-rex 00:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this may be salvagable. I can't read polish, but it looks like that site (unreliable as it may or may not be) is basically ranking MBT's by generation. Let me dig out my old jane's book to see if they do the same thing. It's likely not OR, at least. Protonk (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I don't have it anymore and there are no previews for the MBT books from Janes. I'll look at the library tomorrow. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Jane's armor books at my library (weak). I'm still going to side on weak keep for this article as I don't think it is OR and I'm fairly certain that lists delineated in this fashion exist. Protonk (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have been fairly certain for eleven months, and came up with zilch. But they wasted tonnes of time and energy revert-warring each other in this list, based only on their opinions. Please, let's stop condoning original research based on pure speculation. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 19:25 z

I'm not condoning OR. I just don't have a copy of Jane's ref on MBT's in hand. If I did I could give an easy up/down to this. I'm of the mind that if Jane's doesn't roughly classify MBT's by generations, we shouldn't. Protonk (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination appears to a point nomination made after an increasingly fractious but fruitless content dispute with very few editors actually involved. Quite simply, I refuse to believe the side taken by the nominator in that discussion and now here that there are no reliable sources from which comparative classing and listing of MBT's is possible. If these contradict each other, as they would because it is always going to involve subjective assesment of what's important in a tank, it can be documented in the article. A list of MBTs by comparison of features, even if the only agreed measure of comparison comes down to simple factors such as first build date, range, gross weight or speed, is eminently worthy of creation, as a usefull fork of Tank classification, which itself needs improvement. Afd is not a step in dispute resolution, and it seems the parties are too heavily 'engaged' to think outside the box in the dispute to achieve agreement. MickMacNee (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to create such a list. This one is original research. There are no contradictory sources, there is nothing. The basis for this list is wild extrapolation from a few mentions on an untranslated, anonymous hobby site.

I tried for eleven months to encourage the editor of this article to find any acceptable reference at all, or to translate the proferred foreign-language text. I checked my own references and canvassed at the appropriate WikiProject. When a second editor became active and the two started revert-warring over their own versions of original research, I decided that enough was enough, and gradually moved towards the deletion request.

Shame on you for accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 19:21 z

I'm calling it how I see it. A cursory google search turns up plenty of references for x generation MBT, so how it's taken 11 months is beyond me. Deletion is not warranted purely through failure to agree a standard for the article. I will repeat, because it covers an international comparison, any source is going to be subjective, even things like Janes, this doesn't stop other comparative lists. We can even set and state our own criteria for inclusion in a generation or other classification, as long as that measures a verifiable quality, such as range. That is not as some people mistakenly believe, original research. MickMacNee (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went through each of Google's top 50 results for <mbt tank generation>. Many instances of generalized next-generation, latest-generation, new-generation tank, and a few like this generation or each generation of tanks, or tanks of its generation. A number of results where generation describes a thermal site, suspension system, or something else. A few describing the generations of tank production in China (starting with the Type 59 copy of the Soviet T-54A),[1][2][3][4] or the fourth generation of Merkava (i.e. the Merkava Mark IV). A couple uncited mentions in mil-fan forums. A very few where some large generation number is being used for promotional purposes, describing tanks which don't exist yet,[5] and often referring to the completely different Soviet/Russian scheme of tank generations which begins in the 1920s.[6][7][8]

There is one single relevant mention, without explanation or references, on a plastic model manufacturer's site calling the Leclerc a “third generation” MBT, complete with quotation marks.[9]

Same goes for the top 20 Google Books hits. Nothing.

It's all nice to argue “I'm sure you could find a reference,” and to name-drop Janes (which doesn't mention MBT generations), and cite “a cursory google search” (which has no verifiable source for these MBT generations), and mention the problem of international comparisons (still nada). But there is not a single verifiable source even mentioning this scheme of MBT generations.

Nothing.

So if you're voting to keep, I hope you'll also volunteer to spend the next 11 months looking for references and keeping the fans of this article from squabbling about their extrapolations. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 21:26 z

I found a credible source for one tank in the top 5 google hits for "third generation main battle tank". As I said above, if you are trying to find a silver bullet so that all the tanks in this article can be covered by a single source to satisfy the current wording, you won't find it, for obvious reasons. But that is absolutely not a reason to delete the article because it isn't a viable topic in your opinion, which is clearly now very tainted by the dispute. By starting an Afd you've actually put me off trying to work on this article, as I don't want to risk wasting my time, or be forced into rushing the required research into 5 days, but it has to be pointed out there are no signs that the standard steps in ending the dispute constructively on the talk page by inviting comment (bar the project you mentioned, but I don't know how busy that project is, and I personally don't think projects are all that usefull anyway, I certainly don't monitor any for leads), nor any attempt at taking a completely different approach to the current wording which you assert is problematic. It is not necessarily so that the current generational wording is even the way to go, as said, it can be anything quantifiable and verifiable.

It is ultimately quite depressing that there will probably more eyes directed to this disupte because it is listed for deletion than has happened in the entire history of the long but circular talk page, because Afd is ultimately a destructive rather than constructive process, and as said, at 5 days, doesn't give much time for constructive collaberative improvement. Anyway, comments are starting to get long winded and circular here too, so I think I'll leave it at that as my final word for now. MickMacNee (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started encouraging the editors of the article to improve it by finding a reference which was rejected as irrelevant in October 2007. Your alternative suggestions may be worthwhile lists to start separately.

Anyway, I tried the search you mentioned above, and looked through the top 40 hits of <"first generation main battle tank">, and all hits for 2nd, 3rd, 4th. I found exactly one respectable source (a Master of Defence Studies paper at the Canadian Forces College). It's not much to go on, but it fulfils my request of a single source to base this on. I'll withdraw my request and forward the reference to the article's editors.

Sorry to take your time. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 23:01 z

Comment from the creator: I'm surprised that this list has created such an uproar. I study military vehicles for a few years now and in military circles the MBT generation system which is currently used in that list is common knowledge. Anyway I have translated most important parts about MBT generations of article on pancerni website on 17 of July. On the same day I also posted it in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force#List of main battle tanks by generation discussion. The rest of the article on that website isn't relevant to what is considered to be a first, second or third generation MBT. Here's the translation I'm talking about: "The first generation MBTs are tanks made immediately after WWII. The second generation MBTs have better sights in comparison to the first generation MBTs. Also second generation MBTs were the first ones to use laser sights and APFSDS rounds. The third generation consists of tanks armed with high caliber and velocity guns like M1A1 Abrams. Third generation tanks also use composite armour as well as armour made out of highly resistant sintered ceramic materials. Third generation tanks also have full stabilization system for the main gun. There tanks between second and third generations, like Soviet T-72 which has powerful gun which would classify it as a third generation MBT but at the same time the stabilization system is much too primitive for it to a third generation MBT. It also lacks engine power to be a third generation MBT and has ammunition with less quality." Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has something to say about Common knowledge, too. Please quote your translation in a footnote and properly cite the source, if it is to used as the basis for the list. Please note that this description doesn't seem to correspond to the definition of MBT generations which I found in the CLC paper. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 23:55 z

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.