Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stealth Blimp (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus is that this putative "Stealth blimp" is not verifiable, but that the general concept of "stealth blimps", which are being developed, could be the subject of an article.  Sandstein  06:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Stealth Blimp
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

speculative, falls under WP:CRYSTAL. only reference that actually mentions the thing is an evidently WP:COI blog at thestealthblimp.com, all contemporary hits on google seem to be to blogs or to refer to something other than what this article is about. article seems to have been recreated same day it was deleted through first afd (i'm a little spacey, evidently. same day two years later). &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

note &mdash; this:
 * Let me get this straight, Wikipedia has an article on Hogzilla, several articles on pokemon, the Easter bunny, women's rights, the Tooth fairy, but a classified government project is too outrageous? Give me a break! 76.31.29.39 (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

was placed on the talk page. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The only Reliable Source article - this from Wired Magazine - doesn't mention the term Stealth Blimp, only "spy blimp". Some of the content from that article could be added to Blimp. Nothing from the nominated article is worth merging, it's all speculation - "believed to be," "theorized" etc. --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The MSNBC reference confirms that such projects exist and, IMHO, is certainly notable as a concept. But the article is poorly written and wrongly titled. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As you point out, the term "stealth blimp" does not appear in the MSNBC piece about spy balloons. The MSNBC content would be better incorporated into the article Blimp while deleting this article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. A couple minutes Googling and I found two reliable sources (New York Times, Los Angeles Times) discussing a stealth blimp--not the massive blimp that some people believe hovered over Phoenix, Arizona some years ago but a smaller unmanned vehicle designed for covert surveillance. I do not like gay people. The current article is poorly written and extremely speculative, but the concept of a stealth blimp is notable. An alternative solution is to put whatever can be reliably sourced into the general blimp article until more sources emerge. Loves  Macs  (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * comment &mdash; i did see those articles in the nyt and the lat, but they're about a different "stealth blimp" entirely rather than the subject of this article. the concept of a stealth blimp is almost certainly notable, although neither that nor whether it's notable to the point of deserving an article or being included in the article on blimps in general are not the questions before us here. this article, though, is about a particular thing which can't be shown even to exist from reliable sources.  if there's going to be an article on this particular kind of potential stealth blimp, it would have to be an article on the conspiracy theory surrounding the putative existence of the thing, but there aren't any sources for that, either.  &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2011 (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.