Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early human rocket flight efforts

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. WP:V, a foundation-level policy, is not negotiable. The article contains no sources that are cited to support any of its content. Recreation is allowed once there are sufficient reliable sources - which do not include the previously removed links to various Russian-language websites of indeterminate reliability. Sandstein 06:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early human rocket flight efforts

Article information cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. For those parts that can then a paragraph in an article like Human spaceflight or similar will cover it. This article will be a magnet for those webcruft articles about theoretical Nazi programmes which never got anywhere but are written up as if they were fact. For example one of the cited sources for this article stated that its sources were "Reports of several Internet forums at the end of March 2001"[1]. Keeping articles like this only bolsters such speculation. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge verifiable content to Rocket#Early manned rocketry, not Human spaceflight (since by definition, this stuff is not) and remove unsourced Nazi stuff. — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 13:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This must be separate article but no should be a paragraph in any one articles devoted to space or rockets only, because:
  -none of all described flights intended to be a spaceflight
  
  -none of all described flights abled to achive a space
  
  [MAIN] all or significant parts of content of this article is appropriated as paragraph equally to many other articles (Human spaceflight, Astronaut, Rocket, Timeline of first space traveler by state, List of human spaceflights, Sub-orbital spaceflight, Aggregate series, Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII etc) 217.23.177.50 14:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Rocket#Early manned rocketry (seems like a better page name) if any of the information has reliable sources --Philip Baird Shearer 13:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All facts are present in 6 listed sources (and in other sources that links from these sources). Low confirmation of some facts and non-English of sources - is not absence of sources and not reason for deletion of whole article (whole text).
  When article was semi-protected and proposed for deletion, some of important links (added to section "Further reading" almost simultaniously) and note about low reliability were losted - see revision [2] These need to be restored, or those who read, edit and estimate the article would have luck of backup info (reliable or not - it is other question). 217.23.177.50 14:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read WP:V and WP:RS The few sources that were cited were not reliable ones. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even in exampled most skeptically-skilled source [3] info about flights in late1944/beginning1945 and 24.01.1945 no written as flood from Internet forums. In source stated that this claims widely disputed long before of Internet and destiny of pilots is unclear 217.23.177.50 15:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, sourced, but sources do not meet the criteria in WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Listed sources (and sources referred from the ands of texts from these sources) are not single. At the same time no any official or doubtful disproofs exist. Article no hides unreliability and luck of backup of some facts (although this may be emphasized more). WP:RS not order the deletion of article. 217.23.177.50 15:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 217.23.177.50 please read WP:RS#What is a reliable source? "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. ...". and WP:RS#Questionable sources "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. ..." --Philip Baird Shearer 15:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of disproof as evidence that these manned flights did occur? Please. And if the article acknowledges that the claims are unreliable, then how are such doubtful claims notable or encyclopedic enough to be here? The answer is that they are not. — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 15:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. It's similar to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations or Unidentified flying object, nobody would suggest to delete them, or merge them into Apollo program or Flying wing. Maybe a title change to "History of manned rocket flight ideas before 1961" could both lessen the claim that actual manned launches took place, and illustrate the topic better. Proper Human spaceflight began in 1961, but the idea of manned rocket flight, as well as some claimed attempts and factual flights, is older. A subsection in Rocket is not enough to cover the subject in necessary depth, as the German Me 163, Bachem etc. as well as the American X-plane (aircraft) series are barely mentioned there. Deleting a Wiki article will not silence internet rumors, thus it is better to have an article that covers everything related, from Wan Hu and Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon or Frau im Mond to claims for or by Nazis, in order to clearly separate fact from fiction. In contrast to the deletion nomination claim, this article can serve as a "magnet" for search engines which right now point to "webcruft". Reasonable books were written on the subjects involved, discussing claims. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 15:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As the initial author of the article I would expect you to support its retention :-) But as Swpb says below, if and when there is enough reliably sourced material for a full article then it can become a stand alone article. But at the moment there is not one reliable source for this stuff as it is structured at the moment. BTW there is already an article on rocket-powered aircraft which along with list of rocket planes covers the Me 163 and the X-plane (aircraft). --Philip Baird Shearer 17:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be noted that while User:Matthead "created" this article, he was splitting content which had been added to Astronaut by another editor - so ownership isn't likely to factor into his position (although everyone here assumes good faith, so we have nothing to worry about :-) ) — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 18:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but properly source. This might be better titled Human spaceflight attempts rather than the essayish title it has. I agree this is not easily covered as simply a small part of rocket. --Dhartung | Talk 15:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this topic could merit a full article, but there is not enough good content here right now for one. Merging to Rocket does not exclude a future split out from that article. If someone wants to expand this article significantly in the course of this AfD, I would consider supporting keeping it. — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 15:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting effort into articles and topics that are in imminent danger of getting deleted, pushed around, shortened to near-zero etc. is of pretty low priority to me, and probably others too. I'm tired of defending or improving stuff that gets frequently attacked. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 03:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's enough documented content to keep, and further improvements are for the editors--Afd is not a substitute for the article talk page. Title change needed "Early manned rocket attempts", perhaps. DGG (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which documents are you referring to? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, none of the content is "documented" as of now. What are you talking about? — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 21:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Early_human_rocket_flight_efforts#German_developments_during_World_War_II is documented, even though somebody asked for citations. The ill-fated vertical flight of Lothar Sieber is a fact, as well as the Me 163 being in service with nine confirmed kills. Also, as thousands of V-2 were launched with a 1000kg warhead, a human could(!) have traveled in there instead once, similar to the V-1 which definitively was tested with pilots. Of course, Peenemünde had to deliver weapons, not useless human space flights. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 02:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, by "none of the content is 'documented'" I meant reliably sourced here on Wikipedia, not that no documentation exists. — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 02:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge Shorten and merge into Rocket#Early manned rocketry. Lots of hoaxy little myths, lacking references, will only result in other sources copying from Wikipedia claims that 'so and so put a 100 kilogram rocket under his chair and flew from Shangri-La to Timbukto in 1123 AD, having invented the kilogram in the process.' Nip this in the bud, move anything which can be sourced to the other article, and then add sourced info if any can be found. Might as well cite Gravity's Rainbow, a novel by a writer who had access to the V2 program archives, who wrote in the novel about a V2 launch with an unwilling human passenger, "Gottfried." Edison 21:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge. Lacking good sources this can't stand alone. Rmhermen 22:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But get some citations to sources, or this is going to plummet back to Earth real quick. You can't launch yourself if you don't have some backup. The episodes, if they are shown to be real, would be extremely notable... but "citation needed" is all over the article. Mandsford 04:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETEMuch of this article is unverified and uses sources that do not meet wikipedia standards for credibility.--Abebenjoe 04:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was actually expecting a full-length article on just the Chinese rocket chair, but was interested to find this history. Rocket is already 38K, which seems long enough to keep this material as a subarticle. It's fine to leave a warning banner up for perhaps up to a few months while people make an affirmative effort to find references (or a lack thereof) that confirm or contradict the claims made. -- Beland 02:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What material in this article are you talking about?. WP:V does not say "leave a warning banner up for perhaps up to a few months" it says "I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." To date NOT ONE PARAGRAPH that mentions manned flight in the article has a reliable source and it already has been in existence for five days. If we remove all the paragraphs with a citation needed (say after a week) unless things change in the next few days there will not be any text left in the article about manned flight. BTW If you expected to find a " full-length article on just the Chinese rocket chair" the what are the sources for it? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maintain a diligent effort to WP:AGF and WP:DBN while removing material for which no one can provide any published source. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. (sdsds - talk) 05:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the material for which there are no reliable sources are removed there is nothing left in the article. It may as well be a redirect to a section until enough reliably sourced material is found. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.