Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian Mars Ship

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 16:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Mars Ship

This article seems to meet the unverifiability criteria. At best we have a hearsay claim reported in a Western media source which by its nature is given to hyping future technological advances which may or may not come to pass.

Although secrecy marked the Soviet space program, since the breakup of the USSR its history has been well documented by Russians and Western observers alike. An extensive look at this topic on the Russian Space Web shows only a history of models and proposals, no completed vehicles. --Dhartung | Talk 10:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• This is an article based solely upon a single journalist being told by tour guides about a ship that no-one else has ever shown to exist and that the journalist is (of course) not allowed to see. Unverifiable. This is no Lieutenant Kije. Delete unless the article can be wholly rewritten so that it is verifiable. Uncle G 14:07, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless some verification of the information is forthcoming. --BM 14:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. Only reason for having an article was if this was notable as a rumor or a hoax, which doesn't seem to be the case. JoaoRicardo 20:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting, needs cleanup - have done a little. Thought i was a space junkie .. i never knew about this or Polyus spacecraft. Which actually seems to have existed. Could get lodged under proposed russian spacecraft along with Polypus and Buran or a 'failed space projects' section or at Category:Soviet_space_program. Please excuse my sad enthusiasm .. soviet space tech is/was astonishing! max rspct 20:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sadly, the information in this article would do better as a subsection of a broader topic, as per Max rspct's suggestion.variable 21:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs rewrite and expansion. Megan1967 23:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This article is clearly worthy of expansion and maybe a little sprucing up Cooter08865
• Delete, unencyclopedic rumour about a trivial hoax. Wyss 10:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.