Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Space Plane Program

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 of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 02:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for an international version of the Space Shuttle program. I am puzzled - the websites exist but Wikipedia thinks that the International Space Agency is fiction. Notability check please. -- RHaworth 18:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've not done any deep checking other than visiting the sites, but this has 'crazy person vanity project' written all over it. Artw 19:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After consideration: Delete Artw 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as semi-hoax (or wishful thinking, much as I would wish it were real). Even on the web site, the ISA is a small New York corporation with no actual international affiliations. If they signed up one aerospace company or one national space agency, or even an organization with the credibility of the L-5 Society, the article might be notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Arthur Rubin. There are lots of paper spacecraft. This appears pretty non-notable; someone is saying "hey, how about a ramp launcher, anyone want to invest in us?" and (looking at google) nobody is noticing. Would need professional external sources that verify this is a viable system. Weregerbil 19:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fantasy project, see also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Space Agency (ISA). Sandstein 21:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for same reasons as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Space Agency (ISA). Powers 21:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 21:24, 10 June 2006 (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.