Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xerus (spacecraft)

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 merge to Lynx (spacecraft) (non-admin closure) p b p 16:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xerus (spacecraft)

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

The article concerns a concept that never went beyond paper. We could easily double the size of Wikipedia if we included things that never happened. Pete (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lynx (spacecraft). The nominator's rationaile is wholly flawed and not based on policy; WP:ITDOESNTEXIST is not grounds to not have an article, as Bigfoot, Ogopogo and Aurora (aircraft) will attest. This would ordinarily lead me to call for a speedy closure; however, since we're here and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, the fact is that this is a case where there is a clear merge target for what would otherwise be a permastub: Lynx (spacecraft), the sucessor that developed from the Xerus project and leverages heavily off its technology. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - so little information here as to be practically useless. If it was very distinct from the Lynx, it might merit an article, but that doesn't seem to be the case. James^x12345 08:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lynx (spacecraft)—no source indicates that it was anything more than a conceptual preliminary design, somewhere along the road to the XCOR Lynx. N2e (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2013 (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.