Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tank research and development

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tank research and development[edit]

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

Unreferenced and seemingly random listing of future technologies, appearing to consist mostly of original research. Most of the actual referenced content is about active camouflage, two of the reference links are dead, and the tiny amount of referenced content could be merged into articles like Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicles or Active camouflage without really losing anything of note. Herr Gruber (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable: see The Tank Builders: A History of Early Soviet Armor Research and Development, for example. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trouble is, that's not what the article is about. Tank research and development is an article exclusively about future tank technology that was split from the research and development subheading of Tank, not about general R&D in the past. We already have History of the tank for what you're talking about. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Readers will come to the article based upon its title which does not include the word future and so the article's scope is not bounded as you suggest. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - This is because it inherited the misleading title from the subsection on Tank it was taken from (Tank#Research_and_development), which is supposed to be a subsection exclusively about future developments. The article itself is also written to be exclusively about future developments, and contains little information not present in either the main Tank article or History of the tank which isn't OR. I can't see how expanding it to be about all tank R&D wouldn't make it a clone of History of the tank. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the tank is a large topic. In considering the R&D aspects of this, we should take a historical perspective rather than a speculative one (see WP:CRYSTAL). Another source which exemplifies this approach is Historical perspective on U.S. army tank development programs of the 1960s‎. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, precisely. But the article was created purely to move WP:CRYSTAL material from the main Tank article, not for the purposes you're talking about. That's what History of the tank is already about, and you don't seem to have addressed how a hypothetical tank R&D article would actually be different from the large and well-researched existing article on the history of tank design. Regardless, the article in it's current state [a heap of OR] is not worth keeping on the basis someone might rewrite it entirely later. Herr Gruber (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Light keep~~, Delete, I may change my mind. username 1 (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I split off this page from the main tank page years ago in order to better handle people who kept making unreferenced blue sky additions (most of which were pure speculations) about tanks of the future. Since then the time I put into Wikipedia has dropped considerably. I grew tired of endless arguments with contributors who could not be bothered to go to a library to check simple facts or bring back a reference. Sure, the topic is notable but right now the entire article is a mess, and I don't live near a big university library anymore, or next to any source of good ref material on current tank R and D.--AlainV (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia doesn't needs tonsils to attract bad editing all to one place. Mangoe (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I almost laughed when I read this article: "Tank research and development is research and development of tanks and related technology." Why thank you, captain obvious! JBsupreme (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though i'm happy to learn that tank R&D was performed in the past, and is expected to be advanced in the future, this article should go. The articles on the history of the tank and the tank will do.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2009 (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.