Tsar (tank): The War Zone is the only reference that even mentions this tank in any level of detail, and even then, in an article that only relies on Twitter and Telegram posts, so no RS has covered the subject of this article to any significant degree.  Loafiewa ( talk ) 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  Loafiewa ( talk ) 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article simply needs more sources.  Salfanto ( talk ) 12:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I say this because the story of the tank is relatively recent Salfanto ( talk ) 12:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Three questions, mostly directed to Salfanto but any editor may take them up: Do the sources this article simply needs exist?  If yes, then please present them here.  If the answer to the above question is no, then should we reasonably expect supporting reliable, independent sources demonstrating significant coverage to emerge in the near future?  If yes, then this article was created WP:TOOSOON , but userification/draftification might be a viable alternative to deletion until such sources emerge.  If the answer to the above question is no, then is a redirect to T-72 operators and variants#Soviet Union and Russia a viable alternative to deletion?  Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 16:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for asking these questions.  So far I have found 3 sources which call the tank Tsar.  https://en.defence-ua.com/news/characteristics_of_trophy_russian_tsar_ew_for_t_72b3m_tank_given_by_ukrainian_expert-10115.html https://interestingengineering.com/military/russia-anti-drone-tank https://www.twz.com/news-features/ukraine-situation-report-russian-anti-drone-electronic-warfare-tank-captured Again, tank you for asking me those questions (pun intended) Salfanto ( talk ) 12:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Could we get a review of the sources brought to this discussion?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete This seems to be a single tank with a bunch of field modifications which got taken a week ago.  It's way too soon to think that there is going to be lasting interest in one tank, especially given that the modifications appear not to have worked.  Mangoe ( talk ) 03:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  There are just enough sources to justify the article.  Cortador ( talk ) 11:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I still don't see a consensus here.  An interesting question is do we have other articles on other tanks?  If so, then may be there is lasting interest in tanks.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz : There is precedent for it, as some individual tanks may be considered notable.  Compare Cobra King (tank) to this article, the former of which has many secondary sources discussing it with a sufficient level of depth, whereas for this article I feel we're scraping the barrel - the majority of the sources currently cited do not even mention the tank once.  Loafiewa ( talk ) 00:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : does not meet WP:GNG / WP:NEVENT , for lack of secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail.  Also, WP:NOTNEWS .  -- K.e.coffman ( talk ) 07:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only relevant because it was in a war-related news cycle.  Sources seem to be the normal sites that cover anything and everything that happens in Ukraine.  An interesting event, but not a notable one.  No evidence that this will see any further or substantial coverage.  Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk ) 10:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: delete