Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte

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. Sr13 03:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte

Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The page has undergone at least one AFD and has been summarily deleted via speedy once. There is still no scholarly proof of the project's existence, just a bunch of websites that don't cite sources Agamemnon2 10:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Landkreuzer P. 1500 Monster be up for deletion as well then?--Sus scrofa 12:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep Keep - I'm fairly sure this is discussed in detail in My Tank Is Fight!, which in this context is a reliable source (and shouldn't have been classified as 'humour' on its own Wikipedia page), but I no longer have my copy so can't confirm the name's the same. If someone with a copy can confirm this, then keep — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is the one mentioned in MTIF, and also has some pretty convincing web hits, so changing to keep — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am not convinced of the scholarly value of MTIF!, as far as I know the writer is not a historian by any stretch of the word. The fact that the "tank" has assumed a life of its own on the Internet is not in question (mostly because it's the kind of thing that's outlandishly fascinating if true), but the fact remains (and I am open on being refuted on this) that no sources predating the invention of the Internet have ever been found for this vehicle, and indeed, the P1500 "Monster". This was the sticking point in the first AFD, with members engaging in significant research to back up the fabled existence of this project, and failing, as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/P-1000.

If this thing really was in the project stage during WW2, there should be some kind of documentation to be found to support that, since many other projects in similar stages of incompletion were meticulously recorded, such as the Entwicklung series. --Agamemnon2 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, it's at least mentioned in print according to this book Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, some print references to this tank. Either it really existed, or it's a notable hoax. Should be kept, either way. Lankiveil 01:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 03:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, with a clear warning that it's poorly documented, to say the least. The concerns raised in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/P-1000 appear valid, but the notability as a meme is beyond doubt. To me, it smells of an urban legend, perhaps originating from a drawing on a paper napkin at the Krupp cafeteria. Stammer 06:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC). This thing is apparently discussed in detail in this recent book in German. I am adding it as a reference. Stammer 06:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC). Isn't there a template for something like "The reliability of this article's sources appears questionable"? It would be appropriate here. Stammer 08:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've now tagged the article as requiring additional references, but I am confident that no such improvement will occur. Nobody simply cares enough to make the effort. Heck, the only reason I cared enough to AFD this was because I recreated, bona fide, the article at one point, and am thus the victim of this hoax. For all I care, this nomination is withdrawn--Agamemnon2 11:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done a lot of digging, and while I can't find any bona fida sources for it, I'd say the number of people mentioning it make it a notable enough hoax in its own right to keep - after all, MTIF was a cult success, so there are a lot of people who'll think it's true and come looking for more information — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Amusingly, MTIF! itself has been deleted a fair few times on grounds of lacking importance. Apparently its cult success is hard to verify. --Agamemnon2 17:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, I'm one of the ones who regularly argues to keep when it comes up. Amazon rank 24410 is, I think, very respectable for a niche book like this, especially given that I imagine most of the online purchasers are getting it direct from SA. While Zack Parsons is certainly not a professional historian, I will give credit that he did a perfectly credible job on it, and most of the other loopy projects he discusses, like Project Habbakuk, do check out — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - This kind of thing usually comes under the heading of "crazy ideas of the Wermacht, 1939-45", and as such is notoriously difficult to source thoroughly and always has the potential for speculation to creep in. Adrian M. H. 14:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Elefant - 65 tonnes -> 30 km/h, Maus - 188 tonnes -> 13km/h, Ratte - 1800 tonnes -> 40 km/h ???. C'mon ... . Stammer 06:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, and the numbers for ground pressure are even more ludicrous. At one kiloton, this thing would probably pulverize any material it stood on. --Agamemnon2 20:36, 22 May 2007 (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.