Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super-Duper Missile

Add links
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 keep. But rename to AGM-183A ARRW. Sandstein 07:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super-Duper Missile

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Super-Duper Missile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of this article is about what this article might be about, because it's not about an actual thing yet, because we don't know what that thing is. Normally, we start with a topic, and then write an article, not start with an article trying to find a topic. GMGtalk 01:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename to AGM-183A ARRW After consideration of FOARP's !vote, I think it would also be appropriate to rename the article AGM-183A and then rewrite the lead appropriately, creating a section on the SDM comment and the theory that the two are the same. We have numerous, valid articles about rumored or hypothesized weapons systems whose exact names are not known or existence has not been verified (as per nom, "not ... an actual thing yet"), or which are known only by informal or colloquial names. See, for example: Blackstar, 2037 Bomber, Aurora, Jumpseat, etc. We also have articles about non-military subjects that are "not ... an actual thing yet" such as Technological singularity, Dyson sphere, etc. Since no valid, policy-based reason for deletion has been advanced, I can only observe — in my Keep !vote — that the article meets the WP:GNG based on a preponderance of WP:RS. I'd also note that the article has received nearly 14,000 page views in three days; this is obviously a subject about which readers are searching. Chetsford (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC); edited 16:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if you need explicit citation of WP:ALPHABETSOUP, then we can go with WP:SUSTAINED for starters. All the information that is actually directly about the "subject" of the article is from the last week. We've just packed in a lot of sources not directly about the subject, but instead about other subjects that are rumored to be whatever it is this is referring to. So we could probably also go with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS.
By one of the few sources actually about the neologism that is the subject of the article, the Pentagon will confirm only that they are developing a range of hypersonic missiles, not any individual missel officially or unofficial dubbed the "super duper".
Just because Donald Trump said something that got covered in the news for the next six days doesn't mean the neologism is notable. GMGtalk 13:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"All the information that is actually directly about the "subject" of the article is from the last week. " Yes ... the subject first appeared in the news in the last week. That's like saying there was no coverage of Covid-19 prior to November 2019.
"By one of the few sources that is actually directly about the ..." Actually, there are nine (9) sources directly about the subject of the article [1]. [2], [3]. [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. And I could add another dozen, if you like.
"the neologism" I'm not sure you understand our policy on WP:NEO. This is not an article about a neologism. This is an article about a purported boost-glide vehicle with an unknown name. The simple, technical fact is articles in namespace must have some name, we can't enter blank spaces. Renaming the article "Purported Boost Glide Vehicle with an Unknown Name" would be fine with me, though. I doubt anyone is going to search for it like that but I guess the redirect would handle it. Chetsford (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle, I agree with this in the future and believe this is where the article is and should be headed. However, at the present time there has only been speculation the SDM is one and the same as the AGM-183A. Though, it's probably not a bad idea to rename the article AGM-183A and then create a section on the AGM-183A reportedly being the SDM, rather than having the article on the SDM with a section on it reportedly being the AGM-183A. Preserving the SDM as a redirect to AGM-183A would handle traffic from users searching that term. Chetsford (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If what we have right now is content on the AGM-138A as a thing that actually exists, and speculation that the "super-duper" is the AGM-138A, then we should have an article on the AGM-138A, and we should redirect super duper there.
Other than that, the notion that SUSTAINED doesn't matter because it's breaking news is completely countered by NOTNEWS. If we haven't met SUSTAINED yet, then we can have an article when we do. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and we we do not generally host articles on topics with the presumption that they will one day be notable. We do not, for example, have an article on Obamagate, because it's "something Trump said once", on the presumption that someone will eventually figure out what it actually means. GMGtalk 14:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"the notion that SUSTAINED doesn't matter because it's breaking news" I'm unaware of anyone making that argument. SUSTAINED and NOTNEWS always matter. And per, NOTNEWS, the mere fact that something is current is not a proscription on inclusion: "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." You can read expanded thoughts on this policy in the essay Wikipedia:News coverage does not decrease notability if this is a topic of interest to you. Chetsford (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a "current event". This is a weapons platform that may or may not exist, and if it does exist, you don't know what it is, which is why you've written an article about what it might be. It's not even clear that Trump is entirely aware of what exactly it was that he was referring to. It is a neologism because the origin of the term is a soundbite: "I call it the 'super-duper missile" and no one is using the term in any way other than to try to explain what it was Trump meant when he said that. It does not appear to at all be a term used in it's own right. Just because everything Trump does makes the news cycle doesn't make it notable. GMGtalk 17:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I respect the confidence of citing your own essay as a reason for deletion, I think - as I previously said - you may be misunderstanding our policies, specifically as regards WP:NEO. This is not an article about a neologism. This is an article about a purported vehicle with an unknown name that has crested the WP:GNG and been analytically covered; meaning beyond the mere routine of spots news reporting (e.g. [8], [9], etc.). Unfortunately, the technical limitations of Wikipedia mean we must assign some name to articles; we can't simply enter blank spaces. Renaming the article "Purported Boost Glide Vehicle with an Unknown Name" seems like a cumbersome solution, but I'd be fine with that I guess if this is what you seem to be arguing. Chetsford (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand policy. I've helped write some of it. I don't think you understand reification. If you have a word and you don't know what that word means, and you write about that word in an absence of definite meaning, then you are merely writing about "a word", and thus are writing about a neologism. The "this word must stand for something surely" is exactly the same argument being put forth popularly by proponents of Obamagate. If you don't know enough about what it is that you're writing about that you can't write about it in any detail other than what you don't know then it isn't notable. GMGtalk 18:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand policy. I've helped write some of it. I congratulate you, however, the way you're trying to apply WP:NEO indicates you may not understand this specific policy. NEO relates to articles about neologisms. This is not an article about a neologism. This is an article about a purported vehicle with no known name. The technical limitations of Wikipedia mean we must assign some name to articles; we can't simply enter blank spaces. Chetsford (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's do this a different way:
  • Global Security Not a reliable source, and doesn't mention the "subject" of the article and should be removed.
  • Free Beacon Doesn't mention the "subject" at all and should be removed.
  • whatever this is. The link is broken. From a local newspaper anyway, and is from 2011. So presumably doesn't mention the "subject" of the article.
  • National Defense Magazine Doesn't mention the "subject" at all and should be removed.
  • NYT Doesn't mention the "subject" of the article at all and should be removed.
  • BI Uses the term in scare quotes. Specifically says It is unclear what specific weapon the president may have been referring to in his comments
  • The Hill Also uses the term in scare quotes and quote the Pentagon as saying they're developing a "range of hypersonic missiles"
  • The Hill Also uses scare quotes, and is mostly about hypersonic weapons, which may legitimately be a subject for an article.
  • Tass which is a Russian news agency, and of unknown reliability. Also uses scare quotes and doesn't give a real indication of what we're talking about.
  • BulgarianMilitary.com? I'm not even going there.
  • A twitter post? Not going there either. Any experienced editor should know better than this.
  • China Times, in Chinese. So let me know who it is that can read and evaluate that.
  • Popular Mechanics which doesn't mention the "subject" of the article
  • Times of Israel, passing mention in scare quotes. No indication what they're actually talking about.
So yeah. There's really nothing that treats "super duper" as something other than something Trump said one day. Fully half the sources don't even mention the subject, and should be removed as WP:OR on the part of Wikipedia editors. The rest are speculation about what we might be talking about. If you want to write an article on Hypersonic Missiles, then go for it. It's currently a redirect. But "something Trump said one day" does not endow notability unless you actually have sources that treat that as a thing in-and-of-itself in detail. GMGtalk 18:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do this a different way: I mean, if you want to take a run at this from a different angle that's fine, I suppose. But adding walls to existing walls of text makes this increasingly difficult to follow.
  • Global Security Not a reliable source Agreed. Deleted.
  • Free Beacon Doesn't mention the "subject" WP articles frequently include background sections for context and those require referencing. None of the sources in the first two paragraphs of Herman Vandenburg Ames mention the subject of the article. Not a policy-based deletion argument. In any case, this just seems to be a validation of the Rename !vote to AGM-183.
  • National Defense Magazine Doesn't mention the "subject" WP articles frequently include background sections for context and those require referencing. None of the sources in the first two paragraphs of Herman Vandenburg Ames mention the subject of the article. Not a policy-based deletion argument. In any case, this just seems to be a validation of the Rename !vote to AGM-183.
  • NYT Doesn't mention the "subject" WP articles frequently include background sections for context and those require referencing. None of the sources in the first two paragraphs of Herman Vandenburg Ames mention the subject of the article. Not a policy-based deletion argument. In any case, this just seems to be a validation of the Rename !vote to AGM-183.
  • BI Uses the term in scare quotes. No, just quotes. And not a policy-based deletion argument.
  • The Hill Also uses the term in scare quotes No, just quotes. And not a policy-based deletion argument.
  • The Hill Also uses scare quotes No, just quotes. And not a policy-based deletion argument.
  • Tass which is a Russian news agency State media is generally usable to cite unremarkable quotes attributed to state officials of the sponsor state, which is how it's used. We have generally approach it in the same was as a press release; it does not contribute to notability but it has (very) limited citability "as sources of information about themselves".
  • A twitter post? Not going there either. Any experienced editor should know better than this. Any experienced editor should know that per WP:SELFSOURCE "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" (how it is used) and "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert" (such as Nick Schifrin)
  • China Times, in Chinese. So let me know who it is that can read and evaluate that. Me. I can.
Here's some more original (i.e. non-syndicated) RS from inside and outside the article: [10], [11], [12]. If you can do these, I'll post another batch after, but will limit posting them to groups of three for ease of readability.
But "something Trump said one day" does not endow notability You keep saying that. Who exactly are you quoting? Chetsford (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC); edited 20:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that mention the subject not at all, or mention it in passing, do not contribute to notability. Sources that are mentioning the subject in scare quotes are using it "as a term" and not "as a subject", and none of those explore the term as a term in any depth. They explore what the term might mean, not as a source in the case of The pot calling the kettle black which explore the term as a term in depth. As to your sources:
President Donald Trump calls them “super-duper" missiles though they’re better known as hypersonic weapons. Scare quotes, as a term for hypersonic weapons. Good for notabiltiy about hypersonic weapons, not for sooper dooper.
“I call it the super duper missile." Scare quotes, almost entirely about hypersonic weapons. Good for notabiltiy about hypersonic weapons, not for sooper dooper.
This is a garbage source. No I will not evaluate something that consists of barely three sentences and social media quotes. You are an administrator and you should not waste my time like this.
GMGtalk 23:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that mention the subject not at all, or mention it in passing, do not contribute to notability. Correct! Fortunately, that's not the case with these (or, indeed, most of the sources in the article). Each of these is an article dedicated to the subject and that alone, or in which coverage of the subject constitutes at least 40-percent of the text of the article.
Scare quotes Respectfully, I think you're using "scare quotes" as a synonym for quotations rather fast and loosely. And you still haven't addressed how the presence or absence of certain punctuation marks constitutes a policy based argument for deletion.
You are an administrator and you should not waste my time like this. If you find this discussion a waste of your time I apologize. The only advice I could offer is that Wikipedia is not compulsory and one is free to engage in, or avoid, discussions at one's leisure. Chetsford (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By quotes I am invoking the English language grammatical use of quotes, meaning they are using the term ironically, or they are using words as words. If you look up sources for Hammer, you will not find people referring to it as "hammer", because they're referring to hammers, and not the word "hammer". By wasting my time, I mean that I am happy to evaluate sources, and happy to be proven wrong by them, but if you want to engage in serious discussion, I expect that you will at least do a cursory evaluation of the sources as an experienced contributor, to determine whether or not they are completely garbage. GMGtalk 00:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
they are completely garbage I wish you the very best and look forward to future opportunities for collaboration on a different topic. Chetsford (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Super-Duper_Missile&oldid=966639866"