Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xian H-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. W.marsh 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Xian H-8

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Purely speculative article with no reliable sources. When I searched for something to confirm the claims made in this article I found nothing but rumors on blogs and forums. Tim Vickers 17:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: While obviously a well-intentioned and informative article, I’m afraid the final paragraph says it all (as far as Wikipedia is concerned). “Due to very little official information released, these domestic Chinese claims have yet to be confirmed by sources outside China. There are also speculations that the aircraft flying on Jan 15, 2007 was a much less advanced H-6K.”  It’s pretty certain that the aircraft referred to really was an H-6K.  While there has been much speculation inside of China and out about future Chinese bomber programs – and ‘H-8’ and ‘H-9’ have been mentioned in the domestic press – there’s not been any solid evidence that they are so far along as to be flown.  Indeed, given the reportedly ‘disappointing’ performance of the H-6K, it seems unlikely that their more advanced technologies have yet been developed.  I think what is being seen and written about are models of proposed design concepts (and apparently evolved from the H-6), not necessarily planned aircraft.  If so, then it is unlikely that the military has assigned any such aircraft concept a formal “H-X” designation at this time.  My position on these types of articles in the past has been to recommend merging articles about future Chinese military aircraft into a single article clearly focused on what is being “reported” by published sources, but not presenting them as “official” or even necessarily likely end products. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't seem to find sources in JDW or AWST... can someone? 132.205.99.122 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've only seen references to the H-8 & H-9 on defense-related forums/blogs, mostly Chinese. A start would be to at least cite those sites relied upon to produce the article. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Forums and bogs are not reliable sources, we can't use them for references. Tim Vickers 00:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, but some of the originating editor's sources might be reliable ones; or, if not, one can sometimes backtrack from a forum/blog entry to the original source. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The airplane design seems to have been developed enough to not have WP:CRYSTAL concerns.  Captain   panda  03:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's the point – the subject is very "crystal" and the article makes it seem like it's not. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL really doesn't matter if there are no reliable sources. - BillCJ 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are good points. If no reliable sources can be found pretty quickly, I may reconsider my Keep. Captain   panda  21:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nomination and first comment. Would support an article on Future Chinese aircraft projects, provided of course it has reliable sources. - BillCJ 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.   — FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  11:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete due to no sources and crystal ballCromdog 02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Encyclopedia subject, to be sure, but zero sources and totally unverifiable. No prejudice against recreation if reliable sources can be found.  A  Train ''talk 21:26, 9 November 2007 (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.