Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shenyang J-XX


 * 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The result was Keep - Nomination withdrawn (non-admin close). — Travis talk  18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Shenyang J-XX

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely unsourced speculation. Jane's Defence Weekly is appealed to, but no actual citation is provided. As it stands, it looks like "J-XX" is a programme whose existence has been merely inferred from reports of the development of various advanced aircraft subsystems. Rlandmann (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - now that we have a reliable source that presents the project as more than vapourware. Will somebody please speedy close? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - What happened that changed your vote? What reliable source was found that is so big?--Lan Di (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom. - BillCJ (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Provided "actual citation" to Jane's Defence Weekly. Made reference for 2015 PLAAF service entry date(sinodefence.com). The best analysis I saw so far of J-XX program is http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2007-12-21/4_5gen.html - but unfortunately it written by Russian expert in Russian language. There is no doubt that program is real.  TestPilot  06:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete TestPilot is right the Russian publication mentions Project J-XX as a (english translaton from babelfish) "program of the creation of the destroyer of the 5th generation" but as such it talks about merely a program to develop it. The plane does not even exist on paper yet. It's basically a plan and a statement that China intends to build an advanced fighter capable of taking on American 5th gen fighters. Can they do it, who knows but it is nowhere near being close to ready to take form. Why have an article on something that is not even in the development stage yet?--Downtrip (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you actually read russian article (or another sources) - you will see that J-XX is not "n a plan and a statement", but actual development program with multiple mocks-ups created so for wind tonels/cross-section tests. With dozens research institutions working on it under AVIC I. And, as to should we have an article on development program, look at Ares V, it is also "is nowhere near being close to ready to take form".  TestPilot  14:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: the problem here is not that there is no finalised design; the problem is the lack of verifiable, reliable sources that say anything substantial about it. One article (itself mostly speculative) in JDW five years ago hardly counts, and the New Scientist article simply rehashes it. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Apparently there is a full scale mockup, from a page I found http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2590/19bh1.jpg that shows this plane is real, and that there is more to the story than meets the eye. There is also the story of this plane, but I haven't read it yet on that page.--Lan Di (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (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.