Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RMI-8


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

RMI-8

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Most information about this aeroplane is fake. There is insufficient WP:RS to WP:VERIFY the slightest WP:NOTABILITY.

My prod was removed on the basis that the fakery is not proven. However the WP:PROVEIT policy puts the burden of proof on the addition of content, not its removal. The case for fakery is strong, so I present it here in more detail.

Some kind of project study probably existed, see for example this list. But there is no verifiable evidence that it was ever built.

The two cited sources do not adequately establish the status of the design, never mind its notability. One, Hegedus & Ozsvath, is not a viable source anyway. It cites the other, Bonhard et. al., as its only source. It acknowledges it is publishing fake photos but does not realise that the drawings and much other data are drawn from equally unreliable Internet sources - fact cannot be untangled from fiction. The only RS we have is a passing mention in a book on the Hungarian Army. Internet searches have not shown up any more RS, but they have found discussions of fakery.

Discussions at Marton XV-01 on www2aircraft.net and Marton X/V (RMI-8) on Secret Projects reveal that:
 * Slava Trudu created the best-known fake image and posted it on Photobucket in 2009. He based it on a model which he had made from a resin kit* and posted on the WhatIf modellers forum here.
 * The tail design probably originated with Fokker D.XXIII
 * Some fuselage detail appears to come from the Saab 21
 * The ground crew were clipped from an image on Photoshop, uploaded by Stava Trudu (but later blocked from public view), follow a link on ww2aircraft to here.

These and other Internet snippets do suggest that the wing may have been under construction when the Allies bombed it out, and some numbers may or may not go back to the one known WP:RS. But beyond that one apparent mention in a book on the Hungarian Army by Bonhard et. al., there is nothing to WP:VERIFY the slightest notability.

* For information: short-run resin kits of obscure projected aircraft designs are very common these days, especially from East European kit suppliers. Many are highly speculative and/or inaccurate. They are too niche a product to establish any kind of notability. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Hegedus & Ozsvath have another image on page 171 that appears not to have come from Slava Trudu, and looks rather less like a photoshop job. We cannot judge the reliability of a source solely by what sources they cite.  We don't necessarily know what assessment they made of the sources and what other sources they used but didn't list.  That's why we use sources from reliable publishers with a reputation for fact checking.  We rely on them to do the assessment.  I'm not seeing any evidence that this paper was published in a peer reviewed journal, but it is on the website of the Hungarian Military Logistics Association.  According to their homepage, they are associated with the Hungarian National Archives. Make of that what you will. SpinningSpark 12:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Had you translated the image caption "8-9. ábra: A Marton X/V harci repülőgép makettje fotómontázsokon" (Figures 8-9: Photomontages of a model Marton X/V fighter aircraft) you would have found the acknowledgement of fakery to which I refer in my rationale; note that the acknowledgement refers to both images, 8 and 9. At least some of the drawings of it in the paper are also recent concoctions by Internet funsters and those are not acknowledged. Who knows which text factiods might not accompany them or whether any drawings are genuine. You might suggest that this paper is less mixed-up over its verifiability than I do, but the WP:PROVEIT policy puts the burden of proof and clearing of doubt on those who wish to demonstrate verifiability and notability, not the other way round. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - With the only "proof" of its existence being an obviously photoshopped, I support deletion until a reliable source can be found that confirms its existence. - ZLEA T\C 14:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. A translation of citation 1 of the article states in part "In the field of further development of the two-engine destroyer category, the Hungarian development engineers also followed the German trend when Marton Dezső - MartonVilmos' pair X / V twin-engine experimental combat aircraft was built". Later it states " The experimental aircraft was operated in Ferihegy, in the workshop of the RMI (Aviation Technical Institute),destroyed by an American air strike in April 1944." Unless I'm missing something it appears (according to this source) one was built, ran and destroyed. - Samf4u (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering that the article contains images of models that have been photoshopped to look real, I wouldn't take the source too seriously. It appears to be based off of internet rumors, not surviving records. - ZLEA T</b><b style="color:#6B8E23">\</b><b style="color:#6B8E23">C</b> 14:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rumours indeed. Stories vary from the wings part-built to the plane nearing completion to the thing flying. The faked images are almost always produced in support of the more exaggerated claims. And the claim of flight we have here is the most exaggerated of all. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:HOAX. I've added it to WP:HOAXLIST. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 08:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think this should be on the hoax list. There is some (thin) evidence that this was a real project. Everything else is confusion caused by some over-excitable model makers. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with . This is not so much a Wikipedia hoax as exaggeration out of all proportion in typical Internet style. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "For the purpose of this list, a hoax is defined as a clear and deliberate attempt to deceptively present false information as fact." It seems clear that that is happening (eg photoshapped images) even if the subject technically exists. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 20:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Exacly. It's not clearly deliberately deceptive.  Neither our article nor the source presents any photographs as anything other than what they are. Our article marks the images as models and the source marks its (different) images as photomontages. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 21:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The list is not for all hoaxes, but specifically for "Wikipedia hoaxes" also referred to as "hoax articles". That is, hoaxes originally created on Wikipedia. Hoax articles often betray themselves by the style of editing, this is not true of articles about other hoaxes, such as Piltdown Man. There is no suggestion that this hoax was brewed up specifically on Wikipedia. See also this conversation on my user talk page a few days before I posted this AfD. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't think that there any evidence that this is an actual hoax, but it doesn't seem to have been a project that got very far. There are insufficient reliable refs to show WP:GNG or to write much about it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.