Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Heavy Lift Vehicle

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Heavy Lift Vehicle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a proposal is at such an early stage and so far in the future that it cannot possibly be considered notable. There is nothing in production, there isn't a finalised design, I'm pretty sure there's no funding; it is just a slide in a powerpoint presentation. In addition, the article cites only one reference, which is of questionable reliability (a blog post about aforementioned slide), and fills in the gaps with what can be best described as speculative fiction and synthesis. Note that I did PROD this, the original author removed the tag, along with several cleanup tags, without addressing concerns or providing any rationale whatsoever. W. D. Graham 07:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a type of heavy lift launch vehicle. The creator User:Email2ajaysingh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) seems to know what s/he's talking about, e.g. List of Indian launch vehicles, and IMO should not be discouraged from contributing (even though s/he may not be notable). -- Trevj (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your argument. I have no opinion on the biographical article you give as an example, but I can't think of any case where WP:AGF would trump basic content policies such as WP:N - otherwise CSD A7 would be out of a job. Secondly, as an expert in the field, I would very strongly disagree with you holding List of Indian launch vehicles up as an example that the user "seems to know what s/he's talking about". I don't want to bite the newcomer here, but to be frank that article is completely wrong in every way and form. I could go into detail, but I'm not going to stray too far off topic, so to summarise, the header bar for the list can't decide whether it is going to present data on types of rocket or individual launches, neither of the launches listed was made by an Indian rocket (and neither of the Indian rockets that the article claims made them was even in service at the time of those launches), the "Intercosmos" [sic] and "Ariane" are not configurations of SLV and ASLV, they are a Soviet programme and a European rocket, neither of which have anything to do with India's rocketry programme, which that article purports to be about. It is beyond salvage, I'll probably do a complete rewrite at some point soon. Back to the matter at hand, I think all we've established here is that the author does not have sufficient expertise to be given the benefit of what little doubt exists. --W. D. Graham 22:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article based on a blog which is based on some presentation of a proposal made internally at ISRO - doesn't belong to Wikipedia. It is not even officially stated by ISRO in its website, leave alone notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am a space nut and not at all pro-American, ever though I live here. This 'article' is painful to read. It appears to be the ramblings and opinion of one person and not at all encyclopedic. MiracleMat (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2012 (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.