Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stealth Blimp


 * 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. JForget 00:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Stealth Blimp

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Last week I filed an AFD for the article Atlas Carver, one of two articles I deemed suspicious during a routine pass through our black project pages. This is the other article I deemed suspicious; it seems to be composed almost entirely of eye witness citing, with no real background or development information present for an NPOV take on project. I am of the mind that this whole article may be in open violation of WP:CRYSTAL, hence the afd nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete TomStar81 (Talk) 03:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I only skimmed it, but the article seemed to discuss flying wings. I wanted to learn more about stealth blimps. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:V isn't met by the current collection of sources, most of which don't appear to actually be about 'stealth blimps' Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above comments; the entire article seems to be speculative OR built around linking some reports of uncertain provenance to a single source that may or may not be connected. EyeSerene talk 09:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DON'T Delete There really isn't another neutral source for "stealth blimp" information on the web. Google it and take a look. You are basically saying that there can be no wiki pages on "black projects" because they are classified. Its a catch-22 gentleman. If there is something specific you feel the article needs, then work with me on it and I'll get it up to spec. Hyper formance (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We permit pages on black project, and we do understand that the pages - do to subject matter - will have less than admirable sourcing. That was not my contention in proposing this deletion though; my contention is that one line discusses the stealth blimp and the rest of the article is eyewitness accounts of what may or may not be the blimp. Even the SR-91 page has some technical detail to devolve to readers, and that info is for a plane that has never seen the light of day insofar as the government is concerned. Try harder to find technical info and we will in good faith reconsider our positions. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You guys could certainly help in the search for technical info. With it being a black program and all the pickings will be mighty slim. Additionally I feel the sightings show a statistically relevant pattern that points to the existence of this platform. When many people including pilots and police officers describe the same huge object repeatedly, it is not just a coincidence. These sightings are much more relevant than any other black program sightings. There have literally been hundreds more, but only the most publicized are referenced here.Hyper formance (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I understand your frustration, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Our policies and guidelines prohibit articles that lack reliable, third-party, published sources. There are sites and blogs for investigative journalism, but this is not one.    RGTraynor  23:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with the assessment above by User:EyeSerene --Krelnik (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Quoting Hyper formance: Additionally I feel the sightings show a statistically relevant pattern that points to the existence of this platform. That is pure and simple original research. Wikipedia is not a place to draw statistical conclusions, it is a place to list verifiable information. As Tom points out, there is barely a sentence on the supposed blimp in this article. The rest are perfectly summed up by Eyeserene. This doesn't meet any of our core content policies and I don't think it can in the foreseeable future. Woody (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying but this particular wiki entry has really been the "tentpole" of Stealth Blimp info on the internet. A google search for "Stealth Blimp" has this wiki entry at #1. Once its deleted, this information gets relegated back to "fringe" status and conspiracy theory sites. This is a real shame gentlemen.Hyper formance (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - obvious WP:OR and specifically WP:SYN problems with this article. Until reliable sources can be found for anything related to the topic, it needs to go. Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2009 (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.