Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahab-5


 * 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 keep. No valid rationale for deletion offered.  Sandstein  09:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Shahab-5

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Shahab-5 coined by late 1990s media reports for a hypothetical Iranian IRBM/ICBM project due to reports of North Korean rocket tech being transferred to Iran (https://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/design_characteristics_iran_missiles_3.pdf?_=1360355163?_=1360355163) Extrapolaris (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 24.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 20:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Paper projects may be notable too, and it is not clear this is just paper. Meets GNG -, , Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~   {talk}  00:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article cites two sources, both of which seem reliable and have reasonable coverage. I can see dozens of book sources that cover this missile, all by different authors, and some as recent as 2013.  I won't bother to list them, Icewhiz has already linked a few, and you only have to click on the gbooks link to find the rest.  I'm not seeing what policy-based reason for deletion is being put forward here – "coined by late 1990s media reports" isn't a valid rationale. SpinningSpark 00:32, 4 March 2019 (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.