Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Sack A.S.6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Sack A.S.6

I came across this article while Disambiging for the term "Motor," and upon closer inspection find that it is entirely based off of Luftwaffe 1946, an alternate history fiction work that the article seems to be passing off as fact. As far as I can see, the whole thing is a falsehood, and really has no place in Wikipedia, at least not phrased as a history article.

All of its sources either display that they are untrue (unrealaircraft.com) or are based off of this Luftwaffe 1946. As I've never deleted an article before, I'm new to this whole business, so help would be appreciated. --Alex 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that sets the Arthur Sack A.S.6 apart was that it probably did exist at one point or another seeing that photos are it can be found online and that it didn't use any "fantastic" sci-fi UFO technology. The last time I checked, I was a bit undecided on the AS6 article, so if someone can show that most of it are direct quotes from Luftwaffe 1946, then I'm willing to vote for deletion.--  Netsnipe  (Talk)  03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem I'm having is that I can't seem to find a single source that mentions it that could be considered legitamate or verifiable. The only sites that mention it are sites filled wtih conspiracy theories. Without a solid source to go off of, it's difficult to say the article is completely false. --Alex 13:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think I see some of the confusion. There are two similarly-named websites, one is for the aforementioned game, and another is dedicated to unrealized-WWII aircraft. Note the game site has no listings for aircraft at all, and is practically empty beyond it's "alternate history" section. Up until this moment, I had fancied myself somewhat of a geek regarding military aircraft, but I've never heard of this prototype. I can tell you the United States independently developed the so-called "Flying Flapjack", but I can't say I've ever seen hardcopy for the Sacks aircraft. Perhaps the author can return and help us out? Tychocat 09:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep WP:V dispute. I'm not going to get into this. --HResearcher 11:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Someone with a copy of a Jane's AWA book might come in handy here--I don't have one and google books doesn't have it either, but it might help. I did find a discussion forum arguing about whether the plane had existed or not. The consensus was that there were at least plans for a plane of this type (though the details in the wiki article may be inaccurate).--eleuthero 04:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:V violation. No, I can't say absolutely it's a hoax, but obviously we've questions about verifiability. I do not believe we ought to keep an article just because it might be true, since that violates WP-is-not-a-crystal-ball. I sympathize with HResearcher, but this is why you're an editor. I'm willing to nom a keep if someone can source this thing. Tychocat 09:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable per HResearcher (and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a reasonable guess that it is a duck, or a hoax in this case). I'm tempted to call it complete bollocks. Ah, I just did. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:58, 9 August 2006 (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.