Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spähpanzer Ru 251


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Spähpanzer Ru 251

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only references are direct or indirect to World of Tanks so any data is likely bogus. This vehicle was just a single prototype with further development cancelled so it does not deserve an article due to lack of importance. Denniss (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the World of Tanks is 'likely bogus'? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WoT is a game and has many ahistorical vehicles and/or ahistorical equipment/armament options. Thus it's an unreliable source for anything. Both article "sources" are either directly related to WoT or have their info from WoT. The only other option to delete is a redirect to WoT article. --Denniss (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that World of Tanks is a game, but you have not convinced me yet that this reference relies on questionable data--or any data--from the game. They even have a picture supposedly of that tank that appears to be in a museum.  If so, that seems pretty notable to me.  However, I can't pin down *any* information on the people who created that site, or any sources they have used to compile the information.  It certainly doesn't look like scholarly work--however, tank enthusiasts I have met often aren't scholars but know the subject well.   Have you seen any information on www.tanks-encyclopedia.com that you know is in error or have good reason to believe is unreliable?  Do you know of a more comprehensive tank compendium WP:RS on-line or elsewhere that could give a good metric for comparison?  I'm going to ask a friend who was into tanks what he thinks.   --David Tornheim (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I checked with my friend who said this is a reliable source: Jane's Tank & Combat Vehicle Recognition Guide.  We have an article Chris Foss.  I am not sure it is the same person.  --David Tornheim (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The photo in this source says it is in the Munster German Tank Museum (German wikipedia version). The curator is Ralf Raths.  I tried without luck to find a full inventory of all of the exhibits. I looked through this set of pictures (and this set) of items in that museum, but did not see the same picture.  It is similar to the Leopards, but has slightly different features, such as fewer roadwheels and a different main gun. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep -- I'm not going to go against consensus. has two one source this which is probably not enough and per other editors comments and I see no need to delete .  --David Tornheim (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC) (revised 02:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC))
 * obliterate with superior firepower Come on people: do you really think that if this were a real thing, it could be cited to something better than a bunch of computer game sites?!?!?!?!?!?!? There is endless interest in tanks and numerous books cataloging very little variant, yet the only book reference I could find to the name was one picture which could have been of anything (I couldn't get a look at it); there was no evidence that it was even a tank. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this reference a game site? Did you look in Jane's Tank & Combat Vehicle Recognition Guide by Christopher Foss?  I'm told this is a good source.  We have an article Chris Foss.  I am not sure it is the same person.  --David Tornheim (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The photo in this source says it is in the Munster German Tank Museum (German wikipedia version). The curator is Ralf Raths.  I tried without luck to find a full inventory of all of the exhibits. I looked through this set of pictures (and this set) of items in that museum, but did not see the same picture.  It is similar to the Leopards, but has slightly different features, such as fewer roadwheels and a different main gun. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:V; the Tank Encyclopedia web site is not RS for Wikipedia purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, per notability guidelines for a stand alone article and WP:V; non-RS sources for citing. Kierzek (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No mentions of this tank appear in a Google Books search. Given the vast literature on tanks (even very obscure models), this almost certainly means that this tank never existed. The claim in the article that the tank was "classified top secret" is highly dubious: tank development has always been a surprisingly open process, with governments classifying the exact details of tanks rather than their existence. Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll accept your (and others') expertise in this. Also there appears to me only the one source I gave.  That said, what do you think the picture is in this source? (It says it is in the tank museum in Munster, though I searched their inventory above and could not find it.)  If I could be convinced that was another model of tank, then I would be fully convinced no such tank ever existed. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2017 (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.