Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-1000

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 delete. --Ezeu 19:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P-1000

The information in this article seems to be unverifiable. It is assembled from four different web sites which contradict each other in various ways and have various factual inaccuracies. None of the web sites cite reliable sources. I went to the nearby university library today and can find no reliable sources about it. I was reluctant to list this at first, since I've heard of this tank, but the more I thought about it the more I realized that I've only ever heard about it from Internet tank fan sites, never a reliable source. Without a reliable source, the article must go, based on Wikipedia:Verifiability. My guess is that virtually no hard information exists on this design and everyone just keeps building on the story. TomTheHand 21:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Weak Delete per nominator, who seems to have done his homework on this one. Agent 86 22:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that, Agent 86, but I worry that I simply didn't find the right books and I'm doing the article an injustice. I'd be happier if a reliable source were found, the contradictions were cleared up, and the article got to stay with all the inaccuracies trimmed out. However, I did look through every possible source at the NCSU library and didn't find anything... as you can see, I'm torn. TomTheHand 22:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe the more prudent course of action would be to tag it with the {{verify}} template. Given that you instead chose to nominate it on the basis of WP:V, I'll have to say delete, but out of deference to your comments I'll soften my position to weak delete. Agent 86 22:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Would it be acceptable for now to trim or qualify portions where the sources are in disagreement? I too respect and appreciate the legwork contributed by the nominator, but I'm unconvinced that AFD isn't premature. Two apparently-independent web pages predate the wp article: Achtung Panzer[1] and Panzershreck[2] (other web sites that appeared since then look like they may be sourced from the wp article itself). Neither site provides reliable sources, but both sites agree that a project with the name existed, and roughly agree about the intended size and armament. Achtung Panzer, at least, appears to be fairly reputable as far as such enthusiast sites go, and presuming good faith on their part I'm willing to provisionally allow that the whole thing isn't just a hoax. On the other hand it does seem to be disturbingly hard to find information about the Ratte compared to the Maus and E-100. --Saucepan 05:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • To be honest, my initial intention when I found the article was to simply trim portions that seemed to be original research and sections where the sources were in disagreement, but I ran into resistance there. When I tried to verify information about the subject, I couldn't find anything. For a short time I thought it would be a good idea to simply trim the page down to what everyone agrees on, but it seems to me that a source is either reliable (or based on reliable sources) or it isn't, and four web sites that don't cite sources don't add up to one reliable source. While I generally consider Achtung Panzer to be reputable, their P-1000 page has at least one factual inaccuracy (discussed on Talk:P-1000, and their illustration looks nothing like Panzershreck's, which casts some doubt on the reliability of one or the other. TomTheHand 06:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I think information reliability is much more probabilistic than it is black and white, although it does seem to be true that hobbyist sites might have trouble reaching the minimum standards currently called for by WP:V -- in the case of Achtung Panzer, it would seem to hinge on George Parada's reputation as an amateur historian. Someone should probably ask Mr. Parada where he got his info and diagrams. --Saucepan 21:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I e-mailed Mr. Parada a couple of days ago, so hopefully he'll get back to me. He does have a bibliography page but it's just a big list of books, with no information about what came from where, so I wrote him to try to clarify where his P-1000 information might have come from. TomTheHand 22:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I've received no response from George Parada to my request for sources and questions about a few things about the article. TomTheHand 19:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep the information present in this article comes from a reliable source, Achtung Panzer!, which User:TomTheHand has attempted to discredit using a fallacious argument based on a strawman distortion of a single sentence in one article: namely, he claims that a statement that a mock-up turret was moved to a location must mean it was installed at that location. This is not only ludicrous, but original research aimed at making the article appear to have no reliable source when in fact it does have at least one such source. Hrimfaxi 07:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Add also as sources demonstrating the thing's existence this, and if anyone can get hold of this it could presumably be used as a source. The book Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945 would also presumably include something on P1000, since (apparently) it even includes details of the Midgard-Schlange project to build a 60,000 ton burrowing train.Hrimfaxi 09:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to use a "strawman distortion" to discredit Achtung Panzer. It is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Read it.

I'll see if I can find German Secret Panzer Projects. Until I do, I stand by my position to delete the article as it is based entirely on unreliable sources. If, in the future, someone gets their hands on a reliable sources, they can recreate the article based only on information found in those sources. Again, for goodness sake, read the verifiability policy. There's nothing to argue about here, no room for interpretation. None of the sources used to make the article are reliable according to Wikipedia policy. TomTheHand 15:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have, thanks. It says nothing that would disqualify a respected website with numerous awards as a reliable source. Hrimfaxi 15:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence is The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources. Achtung Panzer! is a personal web site, not a published source.

Also see here. Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Again, Achtung Panzer is a personal web site and is not acceptable as a source. TomTheHand 15:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also this: Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. It seems like a long shot but it's just possible that Mr. Parada migh turn out to qualify. --Saucepan 21:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how "acknowledged expert" is meant to be interpreted. Is it enough that assorted other amateur web sites consider his to be good, or are we talking about a higher standard of acknowledgement? Does he have to be generally acknowledged to be an expert by professional historians? I did some Googling, and George Parada seems to be well-respected on various web forums and stuff, but his presence seems to be limited to the amateur military history community on the web. I wish he had a bio or something on achtungpanzer. I'll try to look and see if he's written any books or anything. TomTheHand 22:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I do see him credited as co-author on a couple of books. I'll look into that further. TomTheHand 23:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The books in question seem to be ~50 page light reading picture books. I don't think they establish expert status in any way. TomTheHand 19:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. This tripod site, http://members.tripod.com/~fingolfen/superheavy/p1500.html, at least points to a book in reference to the P-1500, so we could see if it mentions the P-1000, too. The book in question is, I think, Tanks; the Axis powers: Germany, Italy, and Japan, by Eric Grove. Libraries that have it are: NORTHLAND PIONEER COL (AZ), LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUB LIB (CA), PLACER CNTY LIBR (CA), MIAMI-DADE PUB LIBR SYST (FL), PRITZKER MILITARY LIBR (IL), ALLEN CNTY PUB LIBR (IN), KOKOMO-HOWARD CNTY PUB LIBR (IN), KENTUCKY HIST SOC LIBR (KY), NICHOLLS STATE UNIV ELLENDER MEM LIBR (LA), SAILS, INC (MA), SAGINAW PUB LIBR (MI), UNIV OF NEBRASKA OMAHA (NE), MOHAWK VALLEY COMM COLL (NY), CUYAHOGA CNTY PUB LIBR (OH), EASTERN OREGON UNIV ((OR), US ARMY, MIL HIST INST (PA), NAVAL WAR COLL (RI), BLUE RIDGE REG LIBR (VA), MILWAUKEE CNTY FEDERATED LIBR (WI), and SAINT NORBERT COL LIBR (WI). So, I'd say, have someone who lives nearby check that book, see if it seems scholarly or has references. This thing was supposedly cancelled by Speer in '43, so I'll check my copy of Inside the Third Reich, but it wouldn't hurt to check The Spandau Diaries and Infiltration, too (I don't have those). If no luck there, then I'll say strong delete. Sacxpert 10:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't live near a copy of Tanks; the Axis powers, but my nearby university library has The Spandau Diaries and Infiltration so I'll have a look at them either today or early this week. I hope this AfD will still be open; there have been very few participants. TomTheHand 11:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of verification from reliable sources. Willing to reconsider if better sourcing is provided.--Isotope23 17:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep Reason to believe the information is verifiable even if we do not have the reference in hand. I hope we do find a reference (or expose it as a hoax) but until then, readers will have no trouble interpreting the unverified tags and links to tripod websites. — brighterorange (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete if it stays in its current state. However, I recommend a {{verify}} tag to see if it gets any better, since this is an important topic. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I just spent two hours at the NCSU library looking at Spandau: The Secret Diaries, Infiltration, and Inside the Third Reich. This is in addition to the time I spent last week checking NCSU's resources on tanks and armored vehicles. I was not able to read anything cover to cover, obviously, but I scanned probable sections and checked indexes and I found no mention of the P-1000. In addition, George Parada of AchtungPanzer did not respond to my queries. I believe that if I spend several hours at a major university library, and I cannot find reliable sources on a topic, and none of the contributors of an article are able to present reliable sources, that information should be considered unverifiable and removed. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, any editor can remove unsourced material, and the obligation to provide a reliable source belongs to the contributor(s), not those seeking to remove it. I understand that realistically, not every article contains reliable sources, and I wouldn't suggest that all of those articles be deleted. However, if an article cites no reliable sources, a source is requested, nobody is able to provide one, and several hours of research fail to turn up a reliable source, the article should be deleted. TomTheHand 00:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with Tom, and I've checked my copy of Inside the Third Reich as well, without success. I've also gone back through my Panzer Tracts and other German tank history works, and find no references there, either. I don't see any documented evidence anywhere to support the claims of this vehicle's existence, and without either a detailed reference from Mr. Parada, or somebody producing direct quotes from the Grove book (which I listed above along with every library in the country that owns it), I see no reason to believe that this vehicle had any basis in fact. I am therefore changing my vote to strong delete. If anyone ever produces a copy of the Grove book, I might change my mind, if it seems verifiable and scholarly. Sacxpert 08:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable tankcruft which wouldn't merit an article even if it could be shown that a sketch on a napkin or wooden scale model actually existed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm persuaded by TomTheHand's argument that it shouldn't be this difficult to find reliable sources for a notable project, and Wikipedia's current editorial stance appears to be that unreliable information is worse than no information. (But "tankcruft"? Ouch!) --Saucepan 18:23, 23 June 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.