Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Changfeng (missile)


 * 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. This is a procedural close as I don't see a consensus after 3 relistings. No penalty for a future AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Changfeng (missile)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Unreliable sources. Cursory Google search finds no reliable sources. The unreliable GlobalSecurity article contains just a namedrop. The unreliable Sinodefence.com article suggests that a missile called "Changfeng" may have been in development sometime in the past (hard to tell when from the article); perhaps the program simply died, or was just the result of the rumour mill. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 05:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 05:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * weak keepIt appears to be the ancestor to the CJ-10 and I suspect this might have to be further researched
 * Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

AFD process guides nominators to do a range of searches detailed at WP:BEFORE but the argument above is based on a "Cursory Google search" therefore I see this as not a valid proposal to delete. (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Google Books turns up a mention/blurb in self-published book . Google News turns up an article on spacewatch.global which mentions "SpaceTrek openly advertises their Changfeng series of cruise missiles". Additional searches for spacetrek and changfeng turned up a Twitter post mentioning spacetrek and "Changfeng series of missiles", and a repub of a SpaceTrek press release  mentioning "Changfeng Type target missiles".

Relisting comment: Bold third relist. Soft-delete is not available due to the (weak) keep. Needs further input to reach consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, coverage is insignificant and unsustained. That's assuming that it even exists and that "Changfeng" is not just a name that was earlier associated with some other weapon (as seems to be implied by the non-reliable sinodefence and globalsecurity articles referenced by the article) but for which I have yet to find reliable corroboration for. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 00:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak Keep - added a source. I feel like any sources documenting this might be in chinese so might be difficult to find
 * HeliosSunGod (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How is machtres.com a reliable source? - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 17:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Appears to be military website that writes about military equipment specifications, appears to be independent and reliable, as it accurately describes other military equipment HeliosSunGod (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You have a strange idea about what constitutes a reliable source (Reliable sources). Just for starters, the notice on the website states:

"The material herein is a collection of articles and images displayed publicly on the site and belong to their respective creators :: Airdisasters - 1001 Crash - Airliners - Google Images - Wikipedia - YouTube - Ria Novosti - Interdefensa - Popular Mechanics - CONAE - INVAP - CITEDEF - NASA - EADS - LCDA - Boeing, and others. all thank you very much for your invaluable support and cooperation to carry on this site."


 * This is, at best, just another aggregator. Independent scholarship is not evident. The use of Wikipedia also raises concerns of WP:CIRCULAR. The site, and cited page, also do not indicate authors and their credentials. WP:SELFPUBLISH sources are a dime a dozen and typically not reliable. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 05:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * CU note is blocked as a sock, please disregard their !vote.  Girth Summit  (blether)  13:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.