Deletion of Gripen vs Rafale vs Typhoon

Comment: Competition between Airbus and Boeing, aside from being a  argument, is an encyclopedic topic. To the best of my knowledge the "4.5 generation fighter sales battle" isn't a notable topic in and of itself, rather only being notable within the contest of the various countries' fighter competitions, where ''those'' are notable (and they likely aren't in all cases). Also...why only Rafale (so far, zero export orders), Typhoon, and Gripen (so far, the seeming 'winner' of the three)? Why not include the F-16C/D Block 42, F-16E/F, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the latest MiG-29 and Su-27/30/etc. variants? As it stands this is a Euro-centric view of a worldwide topic that, honestly, isn't encyclopedic and would be unlikely to become encyclopedic even if expanded to a worldwide arena
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: Completely 100% |original research as it is not based on any references that actually compare the aircraft. As a secondary issue the article is very badly written, reads like a personal essay instead of an encyclopaedia article and is full or grammatical errors and empty sections. Even if retained it would have to be re-written from scratch
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I just acted on a hunch, and decided to check if some of this content has been previously posted elsewhere. Many paragraphs have been entirely copy+pasted from other websites, which I believe infringes upon opyvio. The article's developer needs to learn the difference between sourcing information, and wholesale plagiarism - One is taking the content of a work exactly how it is and dumping it into your own text (not allowed) while the other is making reference to a piece of, or multiple peices of, information from that source, rewritten in original words; sections shouldn't just be ripped out of other websites and dumped onto Wikipedia - it isn't allowed, and brings Wikipedia into disrepute, especially when some of those sources aren't proper sources to begin with (Do not use forums for information - anyone can log into a forum and cry something, it doesn't make them right in the slightest); please only cite information from eliable Sources only. This article is a complete mess - It should be scrapped
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C||WP:R)