Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-94

:{{la|T-94}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|T-94}})

Insufficiently notable. Source is questionable. Marcus Qwertyus 02:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - I can't find a reliable source for this tank. I can find plenty of mentions, but none are in reliable sources. Several end up tracing back to works of science fiction. If this tank ever existed there does not appear to be enough reliable coverage to write an article about it (and there's certainly no such coverage in the current version of the article). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 08:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 08:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 08:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Even Russian media doesn't know anything about this tank. --Ezhuks (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Conditional keep: if (and only if) some decent sources can be found, there probably is enough notability as a weapons prototype. The only source indicated that it might have even gone into initial production before being cancelled, but that reference is really iffy. I'm not optimistic about finding goot sources to cite, however, and would venture that this article will be deleted for it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment—It is being reported by the [http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/mbt-u.htm Federation of American Scientists], but it is probably still under a veil of Russian military secrecy. Perhaps a valid tank model, but it may be impossible to find other, suitably reliable sources.—RJH (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• :It doesn't mention the tank by name which is problematic. Is the current consensus that FAS is a reliable source? Certainly more reliable than GlobalSecurity IMO. Marcus Qwertyus 22:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• ::Certainly FAS is reliable in general, but this particular article is indeed problematic as you state. The lack of proper naming gives me a small measure of doubt that it's even referring to the same vehicle, though it seems to describe it. I don't think this is enough on it's own, we need more sources. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.  —Michael Z. 2011-01-25 19:36 z
• Comment The T-94 would be Morozov/Ukraine's R&D project, not UVZ/Russia's T-95. It might be notable in that it would have influenced the turret and autoloader design of the T-84 Oplot, but I can't find a single reliable reference. —Michael Z. 2011-01-25 19:41 z
• Delete no prejudice to recreation if additional reliable sources are found - has anyone Jane's Armour and Artillery? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• comment perhaps keep as per [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hpNrvCRlqCcC&pg=PA112&dq=%27t-94%27+tank&hl=en&ei=m2VATbCbDsrMhAflmvSnCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%27t-94%27%20tank&f=false "Ammunitions: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" ISBN 9780546677539]
• :That's just a mirror of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T-95&oldid=175842040 an old version] of the T-95 article. Marcus Qwertyus 22:35, 26 January 2011 (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.