Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SR-72(plane)


 * 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. Deryck C. 22:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SR-72(plane)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Pure speculation. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 00:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per number 5 at WP:CRYSTAL, which says "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate".  City O f Silver  00:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I originally added the 'notability' tag. The article is about a possible name for a possible plane that may not be technically or financially possible. And may or may not be developed in secret. Very vague! Sionk (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doesn't meet notabily criteria (no broad coverage - a search finds mostly old rumors) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Objections above that this is a Crystal ball exercise in "product announcement information" is off base — this is a very real classified government weapons project, as attested by the footnote showing in the piece, which is a Gannett Co. news story. The fact that it is in the development stage rather than to the point of actual production and use is neither here nor there so long as there is extant published coverage of the program. That's one piece of published, independent, reliable, substantial sourcing showing as a footnote in the piece. The problem lies in finding anything more than that. I gave it a little spin yesterday and wasn't able to find anything that passed muster. However, I think other reliable stories are fairly likely to exist, given the substantial number of blog stories that I saw. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit:Carrite (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - One article in June 2007 and some subsequent blog chatter does not really meet our WP:GNG, does it? EricSerge (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete An unverified secret project - fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Peacock (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any individual aircraft type is notable. However, given that this is simply a contract award with the rest being speculation, this is something that should likely be deleted without prejustice to later recreation if and when more information becomes available. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Far too speculative for an article. All aircraft types are notable, but this is barely a rumour of the possibility of a type. - Ahunt (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I actually nominated it a second time as somebody had tagged it as closed - outcome Keep, so ythe second nomination can be ignored.Petebutt (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, nobody had tagged it - that's just part of the template code for cut-and-pasting onto the talk page if it's kept. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that now, thanksPetebutt (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete For starters, lets look at where the title came from, which is that one web site said that some people are calling the possible future plane plane a SR-72. North8000 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2012 (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.