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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Carver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article popped up on a routine sweep I conduct of the pages using the ((blackproject)) template to look for material that seems out of place, suspicious, or otherwise not in compliance with anything we support. The article in question references a hypothesized recon satellite but offers no sources to back up its claims, and I can find nothing of note on google. I suspect the article may be a hoax, and since the black project template requires as a condition of its use reliable sources I am moving to have this article deleted on WP:CRYSTAL grounds. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 02:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 03:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to weak keep; the article does apparently have some sourcing for its info, but still needs a lot work to get up to par. A more important question now is why the article was a part of the black project group in the first place; from where I sit, its not black. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 16:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Note, this is an advanced fighter aircraft a la the Lavi or J-10, not a reconsat. With the new info, I'm changing my vote: Merge to Atlas Aircraft. Buckshot06(prof) 08:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete From Googling I found some hints that this was a real project, but nothing that looks remotely like a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Project seems to be better known as the Atlas Cava. Googling finds this from Jane's and this from Flight International. This and this mentions cancellation, while this gives a speculative drawing. Looks like a real project reported in reliable sources, (i.e. Jane's and Flight), although there arn't a great deal of details of the aircraft or how far the project progressed - weak keep - or at worst merge back to Atlas Aircraft Corporation.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The project existed and is interesting in its own right as a serious South African attempt at an advanced jet fighter. Sources have already been provided to prove its existence, and I've been told that one of South Africa's specialist aviation magazines is prepping a major story on the project so a fair bit more information may become available quite soon. The 'Cava' name (alternatively rendered as 'CAVA') is used more frequently in connection with this project, but as the SA Air Force's project naming conventions at the time specified full names it seems likely that 'CAVA' was a transcription mistake caused by a journalist mishearing a verbal source. Some scans from a recent book, featuring more detail on the project and a photo both of a model and the design team, are available here. — Impi (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm changing my vote to keep per the excellent sources found by Nigel Ish, though it does appear that the article should be moved to the correct name. From personal experience, I know that it can be very hard to find reliable internet references on the Apartied-era South African military so these refs are probably the tip of an iceberg of printed material. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — From what I've been able to discover, Carver does appear to be the correct name for the project. It's also the project name referred to by Winston Bren in Cheetah: Guardians of the Nation. The common rendering of 'CAVA' does not appear to follow the same style as the SAAF's other project names from this period, for example comparable SAAF projects have received titles such as Tunny, Winchester, Kambro & Flange and I'm not aware of any project being referred to by an acronym or an all-caps word with no dictionary meaning. Indeed, to my knowledge project names were automatically generated and assigned from a pre-defined list of dictionary words. — Impi (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2009 (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.