Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-3 Long Range Strike Platform

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 2018 Bomber. GlassCobra 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-3 Long Range Strike Platform

Violates wp:crystalball because the two sources given don't seem to pass wp:rs. There is no B-3 on the drawing board, it is a name for what they 'think' will be next. Citations are plenty o' google ads and conjecture. Pharmboy (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Worse than being a crystal ball, the article is out-of-date. The 2018 Bomber page is more up-to-date, better written, and sourced, using several defense puplications and USAF magazine articles. This article does not cover anything that the older page doesn't cover better. Appears to be a good-faith attempt by an editor who has had problems in the past, tho perhaps his enthusiasm for the topic got in the way of verifying the subject is not already covered. - BillCJ (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystalballery with no reliable sources. Plus, as stated above, there is a better article containing more solidly referenced information already. Lankiveil (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Per BillCJ as 2018 Bomber is current program, and I wouldn't oppose a redirect to it. However, I would like to note that GlobalSecurity.org is a reliable source and though outdated in some cases I would bet their article is copied from PD-USGov sources. Many of the aircraft and ship articles they have are word for word from old US Government articles no longer on government servers. --Dual Freq (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to rewrite the text a little last night to remove the copyvios, but I agree, empty the article and redirect it to 2018 Bomber~. --MoRsE (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was also a skeleton-like article last night and I will add more anyways so that it makes a bit more sense, but I agree on the facct it could be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball The original author agrees and wants to redirect the article (good idea) and I would say this is ready for a close, redirect. I don't do non-admin closures, personally. Pharmboy (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to 2018 Bomber per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added more, but I will redirect tonight if anyone else doesn't think theres room for improvement.Ktr101 (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 2018 article already has a head start, it would be the best use of your energy and contributions. I was only waiting for the AFD to close, but I guess you can go ahead and just redirect it, and merge any unique info you have. Pharmboy (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect this article with real world notability without deleting it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait till I make any further decision making on this article as it has become a bit more extablished and there have been a few more positive comments. What time does the AFD close Pharmboy?Ktr101 (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs typically run a week, but the can be closed earlier than 5 days by the nominator or an admin for various reasons. My main problem with the page is that there is no such thing as the B-3 - it was a name tagged on by someone to the Long-range bomber study. In addition, the study has been merged into/superceded by the 2018 Bomber, and that article better covers the issue. You may not like opinons like that, but they are hardly "negative comments". Yes there is criticism here, but learn from it, just as you have learned from your experiences in the past, and it will help you to avoid situations like this in the future, and to become a better editor. - BillCJ (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Bill. Ironically thats probably the best negative advice I've received in a while, and it wasn't from a teacher.Ktr101 (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've created enough articles, and been through enough AFDs myself. AFDs are NOT a fun experience for me, so I do what I can to avoid them. When I first saw your page, I posted a note at WT:AIR asking for advice on how to help you avoid an AFD. Oh well, I did try! Oh, I am actually a teacher, though not in the traditional cleassroom, and not currently because of bad health. - BillCJ (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make a redirect to 2018 Bomber. This article was clearly created in good faith but, as per the discussion above, it duplicates existing and more up to date material. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually more like the 2037 Bomber. I just realized that while looking at the 2018 Bomber page. Does anyone think that I should just move this to a new page concerning the 2037 bomber? This really does contain conflcting information to the 2018 bomber when that factor is added.Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Crystal. The requirements haven't even yet been settled on and the assignment of the designator B-3 is entirely speculative. I agree with Kevin Rutherford that this material and the so-called "2018 Bomber" should be culled and merged into a different article perhaps named "Long-Range Strike Bomber." There's no official name yet, but "LRS" was the working name for the concept. Whether it gets built by (optimistically) 2018 or (as per original plans) 2037 is something we'll have to wait and see given existing and foreseeable budget constraints; certainly a decision will need to be made relatively soon, though, since the intended IOC option will play a big role in establishing the technologies to be available for its development. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging the verifiable content of both articles (2018 and 1037) into "Long-Range Strike Bomber" is a good idea. I never really cared for the 2018 bomber title, but didn't have another solution in place to suggest, and it wasn't a big enough issue to mention anyway. Mark's option is a good one. - BillCJ (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2008 (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.