Vought HVM: Sources are extremely weak, and most references online have come from advertising brochures from the company that created it, making them non-independent.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 12:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No possible way this will be AfDed: Lots of articles on the wiki are about weapons that never left the prototype stage, and some of them have reached FA .  So that's a non-argument for AfD.  Neither original source is "advertising brochures" and neither is in any way related to the company or product.  The source that remains clearly specifies it's from Jane's.  A quick google turned up an article in Interavia, smaller mentions in Flight and AW&ST, and a lengthy article on GlobalSecurity and the original one from Jane's.  Using the program name instead, "Advanced Antitank Weapon System Heavy", turns up many relivant hits and several in-depth articles on both the -H and -M versions.  This article is an excellent target for improvement, not deletion.  Maury Markowitz ( talk ) 17:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Advertising brochures aren't independent of the subject and so don't qualify as a legitimate source.  If it were so simple to improve the article (adding a single source) why hasn't it been done in the last 15 years?  All those places you mention are routine, insignificant coverage.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 15:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Advertising brochures Which advertizing brochures are you referring to?  why hasn't it been done in the last 15 years I don't know, why haven't you updated it in the last 15 years?  All those places you mention are routine, insignificant coverage Janes meets NOTE, and is already included via Andreas.  If you care to look for it in Google books, you'll find that Janes has many articles on the topic, including one that details the program in some depth (which appears in multiple publications, as was the case for most of Jane's materials).  The article on GlobalSecurity also demonstrates NOTE.  One finds many mentions of the program's status in both official and trade magazines, and any number of non-insignificant dicussions in places like Flight and any number of books.  As you note, this article is many years old.  Based on your edit history, I'm sure you're aware that articles written in that time frame were subject to far less stringent requirements than they are today.  We're here to curate the world's knowledge, not delete it because it doesn't meet requirements that were introduced after that knowledge was collected.  As I stated earlier, if your concern is that there aren't enough good cites, by all means, tag the article as requiring more cites.  Maury Markowitz ( talk ) 15:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 12:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:GLOBALSECURITY is a generally unreliable source.  Jane's is usually pretty good though.  Schierbecker ( talk ) 21:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Maury Markowitz.  Schierbecker ( talk ) 21:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or, at best, redirect to Vought .  Wikipedia standards have moved on since this article was written in 2007.  We need evidence of notability, not just existence.  The only source we have here is a 2003 website.  Sionk ( talk ) 23:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as per Sionk.  A single self-published source from 20 years ago isn't sufficient to demonstrate notability.  Cortador ( talk ) 23:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Maury, and the fact that supposedly WP:BEFORE is a requirement for a deletion nomination.  This article should be tagged for improvement.  WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 21:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as per Sionk.  I don't see evidence of notability.  Llajwa ( talk ) 21:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I find a redirect to be acceptable as well.  The article has not improved since the AFD was created and what sources have been said to exist that haven't been added, I still see as nothing more than non-independent advertising, and/or routine coverage in military magazines, neither of which give notability.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 11:11, 30 January 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: redirect