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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centrifugal Weapon[edit]

Centrifugal Weapon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article was created primarily to showcase a weapon that appears to have been a hoax; in its current, de-hoaxed form, it's a single, 17-word sentence that hasn't been touched, aside from cleanup and bots, since 2007, with a single "reference" that speculates that the type of weapon might be feasible. A Google search appears to turn up only the original New Scientist article and articles either mirroring or referencing the Wikipedia article; there's no reason this sub-stub couldn't be simply included as a single line in an article about future weapons concepts and/or artillery, if it's even notable enough for that. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons of nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete has nothing to do with the steam machine gun that MythBusters built, that is a centrifugal weapon; doesn't even mention any weapons at all. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Needless to say, this article needs development. Whether or not the weapon exists is unknown to the public at this time. This article does have numerous references online regarding it, some of them approaching credible. The article is not an orphan [1] and needs to be categorized.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: theoretical item without any notability. Thin referencing doesn't cover the supposition, and without any real scientific or military acceptance, it seems to just be OR and/or CRYSTAL. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No prejudice to recreation if actually got beyond a concept at some future point. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:MILMOS/N due to a lack of "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore non-notable. Anotherclown (talk) 07:44, 29 January 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.