Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chengdu Super-10

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 Redirect to Chengdu J-10--JForget 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chengdu Super-10

Chengdu Super-10 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article is almost entirely speculative, based on material from internet forums. The only reliable source supporting the very existence of the programme is a single article in Jane's Defence Weekly two years ago. All that can be gleaned from this is that the aircraft is a J-10 "with a more powerful engine, thrust-vector control, stronger airframe and passive phased-array radar"; not exactly the basis for a separate article. The relevant facts are already contained in our article on the J-10 (including the direct quote from JDW above). Rlandmann (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Concur. - BillCJ (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect is fine with me also - either way, we'll need to watch for unsourced re-creations. - BillCJ (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Redirect (per Nick Dowling). As I noted earlier on the article's talk page, this is just a modernized version of the J-10 and not an advanced 5th-gen aircraft. (Never mind that the JDW article is not entirely correct.) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect as the term is actually found, such as in the JDW article. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To the best of my knowledge, as far as reliable sources go, the term is only found in the solitary JDW article... (but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong!) --Rlandmann (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chengdu J-10 - even if JDW is wrong (which it often is) a mention in it does make the term a possible search term. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to main Chengdu J-10 article - at the moment this seems to be a one of a host of nebulous proposals for future Chinese fighter aircraft. In the event of futher details surfacing from reliable sources then consideration can be given to re-creation.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:58, 7 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.