- 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
T99 Heavy Tank
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- T99 Heavy Tank ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is about a vehicle that does not exist. LifeBeyondLiving ( talk) 21:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- What do you mean by, "does not exist"? It can still be notable for our purposes of inclusion, even if it's just a planned vehicle. Or do you claim that the ref cited is invalid? Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep - A vehicle having been put into production is not a requirement for inclusion. A planned vehicle is fine as long as it meets our notability requirements. In this case it seems the article is properly sourced and its reference is a secondary source in the form of a published book. Just because its not super significant doesn't mean the article needs to be deleted. Meszzy2 ( talk) 23:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)- Delete: as not notable lacking significant coverage. This appears to be a planned tank, a concept of a prototype, along the lines of the T101 and possibly a second type of project. I would not be against merging this, possibly along with T101, to T29 Heavy Tank if the tanks are actually covered in the provided source. I got tired of looking because it was lacking a page number. I struggle with there being a desire to have very short under-sourced sub-class articles when it seems they could be incorporated into a parent article giving expansion and most likely a better class. Otr500 ( talk) 03:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - So I decided to do my due diligence and try and find where in the book the tank is referenced, and so I went and skimmed through all 452 pages of the book (fun) looking for it, but I didn't find any mention. I may have missed it but if Otr500 also couldn't find a mention of it, I'm leaning towards it not being in there. Since it doesn't look like we can verify it, and as we don't seem to have other sources or mentions anywhere, I'm inclined to believe that this vehicle not only doesn't exist because it was never put into production, but quite literally just doesn't exist. Thus I'm not in favour of merging as it seems we cannot verify its existence and am switching my keep vote to a delete vote. Meszzy2 ( talk) 07:03, 10 April 2019 (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.