Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenseitsflugmaschine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was
Deleted. While the article describes a notable conspiracy theory, its narrative was that of the conspiracy theorists, and no reliable sources were cited. If an article on this topic is to be written, it needs to be based on reliable sources, such as books or papers by notable historians, and rewritten from scratch. To anyone who wants to work on an encyclopedic narrative about this topic, I'd be happy to provide a copy of the most recent revision; it might also be a good idea to do this in a consolidated article about Nazi conspiracy theories (or a similar title). See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haunebu.
Should an article again be created under this title without the use of reliable sources, I would advise admins to speedy-delete it as a recreation. Topics like this need to be dealt with care and diligence, in a serious scholarly manner.--Eloquence* 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jenseitsflugmaschine
Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JFM
Caveat: The article may look even more sillier than usual, as some contributors have started to make fun out of this subject, I don't believe the original authors intended to give Stalin Vs. Hitler comic book, 2000 by Alexey Lipatov as a source and Indiana Jones as a see also.
The reason for deletion depends on how to read this mess:
- If this is seen as a article on WWII history, it should immediately annihilated for not having and never will have reliable sources.
- If this is seen as an article about the beliefs of a small group of neo-nazis, free energy freaks, and UFO-adherents, the current version of the article is severely misleading, and an actual article about the subject may better start from a blank page (or from a translation of de: articles). Questions of relevance and self-promotion of book publisher like "Ice-Reich" also appear.
Pjacobi 13:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. I agree with the nominator that the best approach to this article would be to start again from scratch, but I also think that it's a reasonably encyclopaedic topic (either as a common fictional device or an element of UFO theory). The _content_ needs to go, but the article itself probably ought to stay. Tevildo 14:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete This is intentionally misleading information and should not be kept in Wikipedia. These Nazi UFO names thought up by ice reich publishing aren't even worth mentioning. In German wikipedia they either don't exist or lead to a "Reichsflugscheibe" page that begins with the following words:
"Unter dem Begriff Reichsflugscheiben wird ein Mythos behandelt, wonach untertassenförmige Flug- und Raumfahrzeuge im Dritten Reich gebaut und getestet worden sein sollen. Historisch und technisch gibt es keine Belege, jedoch taucht das Thema in der pseudowissenschaftlichen Literatur gelegentlich auf." Under the term "Reichflugscheiben" a mythos is meant, following to which saucerformed Aero- and Spaceflight machine in third Reich are supposed to have been built and tested. Historically and technically there are no proofs, but this topic appears sometimes in pseudoscientific literature.
The whole article is quite good and acceptable and could be taken to a page for esoretic hitlerism or ufology in the english wikipedia, but there is really no need in tons of bulldung on that topic currently avaible in the english wikipedia. Here's the German article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsflugscheibe --Turkmenbashy 18:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete, this is the wrong article for the subject. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 19:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT for confusing JFK with flying sausages in a thesis statement. Ste4k 19:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete: It's always a little too "convenient" that the Nazis end up destroying all the primary sources surrounding the design of these aircraft and all the evidence mysteriously disappears. Even if true, it would mean everyone writing about it since has been regurgitating hearsay. For that it fails WP:VERIFY and this article should never be allowed to be recreated. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 19:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I say keep nothing wrong with it and it's sourced/referenced (albeit by more than 4!). Hey those Nazis got up to some weird stuff... Piecraft 00:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Highly dubious sources. I believe that 99% of all Nazi UFOs are self-perpetuated myths. Come on...what military design office would ever approve the aircraft names "Other-World Flight Machine" or "Afterlife Flying Machine"? It's ludicrous. Think about it...does this article sound like military history to you? -- Netsnipe (Talk) 05:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, sure it's probably not factual, although being a student of Nazi Mysticism I do know that their scientific divisions did explore into every area - and I wouldn't doubt they would attempt creating such aircraft seeing as it was Nazi scientists who were later taken by both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. governments alike to help and work on their space programs and were the scientists who took us to the Moon, space and built stealth to name but a few things. In any case whether it's factual or not this topic has been heavily discussed by conspiracy theorists and UFO nuts and it's well known - I have cleaned up the article to remove the vandalism that others have added and believe with a good rewrite and notice that this is purely based on unfactual records and legends that this article would prove itself to be worthy of WP. Not everything on WP is factual, it just needs to be stated so. This is by no means part of "military history", I would go further into categorizing it under pseudoscience, Nazi mysticism or Nazi conspiracies (an article which has yet to be put together). Piecraft 10:13, 8 July 2006 (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.
