Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-1500


 * 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. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

P-1500
I'm nominating this page for deletion for the same reason as P-1000, which was deleted last week: I have done several hours of research in the NCSU library trying to find information on these mega-ultra-superheavy tank designs and have found no mention of them. I don't feel it should be this hard to find reliable sources. I have only read about this tank on assorted tank fansites, and I've heard that it's mentioned in a couple of 50-80 page picture books of "crazy stuff the Nazis nearly built." I've also heard that it's described in some German texts, but the article does not cite those. The article in question only cites two amateur web sites as sources, and unless reliable sources can be cited the article should be deleted. I'm not advocating deletion of every article that doesn't cite reliable sources, but if I can't go to a university library and find a source, and the author can't cite reliable sources either, it doesn't belong here. TomTheHand 14:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination... not verified by reliable sources.--Isotope23 15:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, with whom I'm impressed. No mere quick and dirty google searching for him! Agent 86 16:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Same situation as P-1000.  --Saucepan 17:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverifiable. --Coredesat talk 20:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't verify the cannon. --Starionwolf 04:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. As one who rewrote, bona fide, the P-1000 page, I request that the executor of the verdict does their damn work properly and deletes any and all links to the article from the Wikipedia, otherwise some other poor schmuck will simply recreate them, bona fide, all over again. Furthermore, since the consensus seems to be that the absence of evidence is to be taken for evidence of absence, protection from recreation seems to be in order, since the online sources are fairly tempting. --Agamemnon2 05:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Better yet, go ahead and remove the references to the P-1000 and P-1500 entirely if the simple existence of these tanks can't even be proven. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I took out most of 'em. Monster (tank) is eligible for SD once this AFD is closed. --Agamemnon2 07:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the articles should be protected from recreation. I don't believe that absence of evidence should be taken for evidence of absence.  Rather, articles should never be created relying solely on unreliable Internet sources when the existence of the article's subject is in question.  If someone does dig up reliable sources, German or otherwise, the articles should be recreated using only information from those reliable sources. TomTheHand 12:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably true. These two are not entirely beyond the scope of possibility, it is a documented fact that the Third Reich had many military projects that went beyond the technological paradigmae of their time. Whether these two were ever entertained as anything more than thought experiments is another story entirely. I don't think they sprung out fully formed into the Internet, there was probably some truth, however twisted, behind the hoax. --Agamemnon2 05:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, it seems like fancruft at best. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Nazis did think of things way beyond their technological realm, but we can't verify that this existed as a planned project, nor is it a notable hoax/conspiracy theory, like this one is. Grand  master  ka  08:48, 3 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.