Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dread

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. Mailer Diablo 08:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dread

• Delete. The only source of information on this weapon system comes from "Defence Review" (see link in article) which in practice is a one-man webzine run by David Crane. The information is thus unverifiable at best. Further more the information is refutable. The "no recoil" claim for instance is - as any high school physics student knows - false. In the comments on the article on the article I have written the result of feasability checks I made using fairly simple physics calculations (see message by "J-Star on Monday, January 24 @ 09:28:14 PST") and the claims just don't hold water. This I wrote over a year ago and the editor has not responded.

In short, the DREAD weapons system is in all probability a hoax. Therefore the article should be deleted. J-Star 18:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Absurd. I made up weapons in primary school as well, but I didn't post them to Wikipedia. --Ashenai 18:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, maybe because there was no Wikipedia when you were in Primary? Only reason I never posted all the crazy weapons I dreamed up in middle school...--Isotope23 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Sounds just like all the other railgun/mass driver/kinetic energy weapons people are trying to invent. The difference is, those are better documented.--み使い Mitsukai 20:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hmm, sounds an awful lot like the Warhammer 40,000 Eldar Shuriken Cannon. Not that I was ever a big enough nerd to play tabletop wargames and spend hundreds of dollars amassing an Eldar Army. No really... I swear... but I digress. Physics would dictate that some of the claims made about this weapon are impossible. The promotional for the DREAD video does not show the supposed prototype firing (go watch the video though... it's hilarious). You see the prototype, then a series of shots into a wall. The weapon was supposedly created by Trinamic Technologies LLC of Connecticut, but I can't verify the company even exists. There are U.S. Patents pending for one Charles W. St. George that seem to cover this technology, but getting a patent and actually building a working prototype are 2 different things. There is a bit of chatter about the DREAD on forums since it was announced last April, but all in all, I don't see it's existance as being WP:V. It's the small arms equivelant of vaporware.--Isotope23 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Would that make it a vaporweapon, then?--み使い Mitsukai 21:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • So it would... you scared me for a second when I saw that linked; I half-expected someone had created a new neologism page for vaporweapon complete with link to List of Vaporweapons.--Isotope23 21:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:V at this time. Bring it back when it doesn't. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Revert to last version by Evercat, or Redirect to Wiktionary, or Delete. -- Krash (Talk) 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Likely to be a hoax. No references. Cdcon 22:34, 17 February 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.