Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahab-6


 * 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  09:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Shahab-6

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Shahab-6 was name coined by late 1990s media reports for theoretical Iranian IRBM/ICBM project Extrapolaris (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
 * Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 00:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 01:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 01:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. It may not exist, but the possibility that it exists is discussed by reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. It may or may not exist (as a paper project or otherwise) - but it is discussed in sources, easily meeting WP:GNG. We have hypothetical weapon system pages when they are notable (and in this case - it isn't clear this is hypothetical). Icewhiz (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article seems unsound and based essentially on supposition 10+ year ago. The very weak cites are from 2000 and 2007 - if this was a real active long-range ballistic missile project there should be more recent solid cites. Taking the existing cites in turn:
 * [1]: If you do a search for Shahab on the google books version of this cite, no mention of Shahab-6 is shown, only Shahab-3. So this cite seems unsound.
 * [2]: Again google books search shows no mention of Shahab-6, only Shahab-3.
 * [3]: Looking at the content this was written in 2000, despite the webpage saying an update was made in 2016. The newest ref given is 2000.  So this is in fact really an older cite than that [1] and [2].

Rwendland (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Many more refs out there - e.g. this book from 2014 has an entry on Shahab-6, or this from 2009, and was in a congressional hearing in 2015. (not that new sources are required).Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also - in regards to 1 and 2 above, if you search Shahab-6 (and not just Shahab which swamps you with all the over Shahabs and gbooks only shows 5 pages) - Shahab-6 appears in both links above - a section in each.Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed the two Shahab-6 mentions in [1], but they are not definite about its current existence. #1 says in 2007 "intended to accomplish", and #2 says "may also be developing larger designs ... Shahab-6". On the new possible cites you mention [4] (2013) says "thought to be in development", [5] (2009) says "it is unknown whether ... Shahab-6 has been tested or constructed", and [6] full govinfo.gov version here does not in fact mention "Shahab-6" despite google's indexing and just mentions "Shahab" once. So I am still of the view that there is no WP:RS that asserts it definitely exists, so this is at a supposition/speculation/possible-plan level. Rwendland (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether the project exists currently, or in fact - if it existed at all - has no bearing on its notability. e.g. see Aereon Dynairship or Project Habakkuk for notable projects that went no where. WP:NOTTEMPORARY - what matters is whether we have WP:SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking to policy, I do not believe the cites pass the "significant coverage" criteria of general notability policy WP:SIGCOV - essentially multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail, not passing mentions or briefly, are required. All but one of the cites only give passing/brief mentions, and it is very doubtful that the one non-brief FAS website article (no peer-review) passes WP:RS criteria.  Unfortunately there does not seem to be specific guidance on military equipment: WP:MILNG only deals with events, people and units, but a piece of military equipment does not have inherent notability. Rwendland (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC) Keep. There is more than enough book coverage for an article. It doesn't matter that this may turn out to be entirely speculation. The speculation itself has become notable. That books are still talking about it in the 201Xs shows it wasn't just a brief wild claim in the 1990s. SpinningSpark 00:44, 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.