Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TR-3A Black Manta


 * 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. Courcelles 00:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

TR-3A Black Manta

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fictional or speculative unsourced material does not belong on Wikipedia John (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are 9 sources without inline citations. This really should be cleaned up, but I don't have access to the source material to know where to place what citation. None of this is reason for deletion, but rather cleanup through editing. The appropriate tag is in place. I am failing to see how the nominators rational for deletion is valid. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Wide coverage in various UFO and conspiracy sites. I write for the wiki to avoid these sorts of sites going uncommented. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment the UFO sites talk about the "TR-3B Astra", which is some kind of antigravity spaceship, not this spyplane. 65.95.13.158 (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a page that is under the umbrella of the black project working group at milhist, and as such its checked once every three months or so to ensure that the article remains up to date and free of fringe theories. I checked it myself about a month ago and found nothing to be wanting in the article, otherwise I would have nominated it for deletion myself. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Since last check it appears that more info of the FRINGE nature got added. After a careful review of the material I've pulled two paragraphs cited to the website out of the article on WP:RS grounds, and it will remain out pending additional input as to whether the source is in fact good enough to be readded to the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted, the article is sourced; the referencing is unclear due to a lack of citations, but that's no reason to delete it, just as it wouldn't be a reason for deleting articles on the Loch Ness Monster or Ogopogo. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep several good sources in the article. Clearly notable, as references are from widely read publications over many years. 65.95.13.158 (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I trust Tom to verify the sources, because I cannot check any of them. However, if he says that they are good and that the article is free of nonsense, then I am willing to put faith in him. The article does need a bit of work on the citations and some of the speculative language could be trimmed up a bit, but AfD is not for cleanup.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. Bahamut captures my thoughts well - Tom's word carries some weight 'round here. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:31, 22 December 2010 (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.