Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Aerospace Vehicle

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. Daniel (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Aerospace Vehicle

[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:POVFORK of UFO. A not-quite-coherent synthesis that emphasizes "truly unexplained" and "off world" interpretations of the concept that are based on the term being used in widely varying and unrelated contexts. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate melange of fairly common words that have been used to mean a variety of things. I'd call it synthesis, except that it's not really coherent enough to qualify. XOR'easter (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Core of this is a more-sympathetic POV fork of UFO. The citations are a grab bag of whatever has used the words 'Advanced Aerospace Vehicle' and are not about a singular topic. - MrOllie (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon Delete It This is the work of an over-enthusiastic editor who seems to be righting great wrongs here at the 'pedia. This is not a topic found in the literature. Publish this outside of Wikipedia and create some reliable sources which indicate it is a separate topic, then come back. jps (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely incoherent content fork. Dimadick (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge anything worth it in Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program that seems to be the main article about this topic. —Paleo Neonate – 07:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite. A search on scholar.google.com indicates it is a legitimate mainstream aerospace term going back to at least the 1960s. The problem is that the article as written gives it usage that it does not deserve. I suggest it be cleaned up to remove the UFO stuff and the term be added to Wikipedia's Glossary of aerospace engineering. Also, tag it with {{cleanup AfD}} ("Use this tag where an AFD discussion closes with a consensus of "keep and cleanup."). Then come back in six months for another look. 5Q5|^✉ 14:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article be deleted in its current form, to the editor who created it, please read WP:RADP before republishing. 5Q5|^✉ 15:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of that literature seems to indicate that the term has a specific, established meaning, though. It's just the next-generation technology, whatever that might be at the time. Making an article based on the juxtaposition of common nouns and adjectives seems like inventing a definite term when there isn't one. And even if there were some NASA glossary with a bullet point that fixed an official meaning for "Advanced Aerospace Vehicle" (more specific than "vehicle of the future!"), I think WP:TNT would apply. XOR'easter (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is the article a content fork, "Advanced Aerospace Vehicle" seems less a specific topic of study than an eye-grabbing, non-specific phrase. I have no comment about whether, as an editor claims above, the term is "legitimate" in mainstream professional literature, but I do know the adjective "advanced" is a trope in science and engineering. How many labs or institutes do not have that subjective word somewhere in their mission statement, if not their name? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:' XOR'easter nailed it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per XOR’easter, and what has been posted by MrOllie on the article talk page: “What you've done in this page is collected a bunch of citations that happen to use these words, but are about separate concepts entirely. They don't actually support the existence of this article.” There’s no coherent topic here, just what looks to be an attempt to justify the existence of a particular phenomenon by reference to the use of the same terminology to mean something else. Brunton (talk) 11:35, 1 March 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.