Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R-3 SSTM

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 was delete. I'll hit SSTM too, as mentioned below. —Cryptic 11:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] R-3 SSTM

Non notable (doesn't appear anywhere in google), seems technically implausible (possibly a hoax). Unreferenced (violates WP:V)- constitutes WP:OR.WolfKeeper 15:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that 194.78.218.68 has voted more than once in this discussion. --Brad Beattie (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V. Article Single-stage-to-orbit mentions R-3 SSTM, but such mention was added by the creator (194.78.218.68/Aideppikiw) of R-3 SSTM.--Húsönd 15:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - sockpuppet hoax. Michael K. Edwards 10:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I know this project, it is ambitious but interesting. --Nositera 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Above comment seems to be a sockpuppet of the vandal who created the article.WolfKeeper 21:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 05:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 06:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Right, that sounds really plausible. Co-nominate SSTM. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 07:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep People have the right to know what exist even if it is not sure it can be done.--194.78.218.68 08:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Verifiability, not truth. (Above user has the following known psuedonyms:User:Nositera User:194.78.218.68 User:Aideppikiw User:Wxcvbn, so has already voted.)WolfKeeper 08:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Do you have a competing project that makes you so upset about this one ?--194.78.218.68 08:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Struckout duplicate vote from IP. Caknuck 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per WP:CSD G1. This is clearly a hoax. --Brad Beattie (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Even is it is happening, it can't be verified. Qaanaaq 12:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a lot more about the Aurora aircraft on Wikipedidia that can be even less verified.--194.78.218.68 12:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Struckout duplicate vote from IP. Caknuck 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy delete, blatant nonsense. Could someone block the IP before he spams again? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Also delete SSTM, created by the same person and just pointing people to this page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. Ineligible for speedy deletion. (The "patent nonsense" clause explicitly excludes implausible theories and hoaxes.) —Caesura(t) 13:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
True, I just wanted to get this mess over with. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Is this user calling himself Night Gyr a kind of moral sensor or what? Information right is a basic freedom. Information denial is a dictatorship.--194.78.218.68 15:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Struckout duplicate vote from IP. Caknuck 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Please stop repeating your vote. It gives a false appearance that more than one person wants to keep this article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I was kind of buying it through the earth orbit, but it is hard to picture a rocket being able to carry to the moon enough fuel and oxidizer to land and bring the whole apparatus back for an earth landing. Von Braun and company had to bring back only a miniscule fraction of the original launch mass. If he can do this is is an unparalled genius, but extraordinary claims require at least SOME reliable and verifiable sources. Please re-create the article when the ship is more than a twinkle in the creator's eye, like when there are financial backers and news stories about it.Edison 17:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:V. Likely hoax. Caknuck 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WolfKeeper 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Why are you voting in your own nom? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable vaporware rocket, unsourced, etc. Sandstein 21:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not verified. Feels like a snowball to me QuiteUnusual 21:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure Keep This is brand new exclusive information. It is going one step further then standard SSTO plans. If there is no oxygen use like described the mass goes down and much more becomes possible. Has anyone contacted Rocson for more details about it. Perhaps pictures. --John Coughan 09:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC) — John Coughan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"Brand new exclusive information" is exactly what we don't allow here. Sandstein 09:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • another vote by sock puppet, the chances of a newly registered user editing both this discussion and the SSTM article to revert it to say single stage to moon is remote.WolfKeeper 09:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering the only non-sockpuppet votes on this AFD are either for delete or speedy delete, is it possible to just snowball this? --Brad Beattie (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

*Keep The SSTM page was changed by someone to "single stage to mars" instead of "single stage to moon".--John Coughan 09:54, 26 October 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.