Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova 6

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nova 6[edit]

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

I searched for "Nova Gas", and all I get are Call of Duty gameplay guides. I think this may be a hoax. In any event, if "the last trace of the weapon was destroyed", how does the creator know about it? Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - blatant hoax. Chemical weapons were not used by the Nazis, or anybody else in Europe, during World War Two - I would say "at all" but I vaguely recall the Japanese having used some in China? Either way, this is a wholly unfactual article that needs to be put in the round file in a hurry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that I cannot slap a CSD G3 tag on it immediately because it isn't blatant misinformation, even though I was positive it was false. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find numerous sources in both English and German referring to late-WW2 German plans to weaponize Tabun nerve gas; it would probably be good to add something about that to that article, or point to where else it is discussed. But I can't find anything on a Nova 6 or Nowa 6 chemical weapons project, so I suspect this is a garbled version of the Tabun program. Unless of course the creator finds and includes sources. There were indeed both rumored and real secret projects. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: completely unreferenced, likely a hoax or joke from someone who has played too much Call of Duty. There would be some sort of record of this program existing if it were true, not to mention the five previous iterations (it is named "6" after all). Additionally, "nova" is a Latin astronomical word that wasn't introduced to the German language until 1970, so it seems rather unlikely that a Nazi weapons program (typically not named for astronomy terms) would name it after an Italian word in the 1940s. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a hoax JDDJS (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is likely a hoax. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable and lacks "significant independent coverage". As such it fails the general notability guideline. Anotherclown (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does look like a hoax article consisting of joke information and deserves to go on Uncyclopedia. Minimac (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shall we add WP:SNOW to the forecast at this point? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant hoax. --RoyalFool (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An IP has just added even more obviously hoax content to the article. Can an admin please snow close this AFD now that it has been established that the article is a hoax? Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And even more IP misinformation has been added (with other removed...). I wonder if salting might be in order. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given that they are IPs, I don't think we have to worry about that. If it crops up again, we can get it speedied as a recreation and then salt it. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:39, 7 February 2011 (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.