This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Spaceflight. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Spaceflight|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Spaceflight.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:| watch |
Minotaur VI
- Minotaur VI ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable rocket model; I can't find sourcing beyond the company's website used now in the article. The blog used as the second source isn't a RS either. Delete for lack of sourcing, not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Oaktree,
- I will admit that yes, this article had a lack of sources. There are reputable secondary sources I used during edits of other Minotaur rockets that can be applicable here; I have since added those to the article. The spaceflight101 source is a data sheet from Spaceflight101, which is a now-defunct but otherwise reliable spaceflight news website. I did a little bit of digging just now and found that they have a whole encyclopedia of different launch vehicles ( https://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/). The PDF I linked as a source is actually originally posted on this page: https://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/minotaur-v/. I personally find that to be a valuable secondary source, and I would expect other pages on that site to be useful for future edits of other launch vehicles.
- As for the article's notability, I personally feel it's notable since Minotaur VI is still listed as available on Northrop Grumman's website and has capabilities that other Minotaurs do not have (i.e. can get payload to Mars). However I will say I may have bias as I created this article, so I am absolutely open to opinions from others regarding its usefulness. IanThePineapple ( talk) 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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. Arguments for keeping or merging are stronger than those for deletion. A discussion about merging with History of human migration or another target can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
List of explorations
- List of explorations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list without clear inclusion criteria. It states that it has the most "important" explorations without referencing who calls them important besides the article creator. Even if notable, it would fall under WP:TNT and is invalid as a navigational list as it does not link to articles specifically about those explorations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Archaeology, Geography, Spaceflight, and Transportation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 22:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, at least in its current form. I have no idea what the ambit is supposed to be - what are "state societies"? Does the author have any idea what they are intending, as that term is linked to the utterly uninformative
Complex society? If what is meant is "state-sponsored exploration", then why does it include entires like the hypothetical discovery of Hawaii in late antiquity, or Livingstone's privately funded explorations? No rhyme or reason here. --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 05:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- A society with a state; the opposite of a stateless society. It's a well-defined and widely used term in the social sciences. – Joe ( talk) 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ah so. That should link to Complex society#States then, I guess? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, edit, and update. A 2001 long-term article, the page lists the first sponsored human expeditions of various locals. The topic is notable, links to various expeditionary pages, and groups these expeditions on one page. The criteria needs to be worded differently, but that's a minor point in the overall scope of the page.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 09:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- See
WP:ARTICLEAGE. When it was written is not proof it should be kept.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Essays have some who agree and others who disagree. Early Wikipedia articles which have stood the test of 23 years of time should receive more leeway and correction. This one has a very good premise which can be refined and expanded. Randy Kryn ( talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- See
WP:ARTICLEAGE. When it was written is not proof it should be kept.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, on the one hand, this is a very bare-bones list, and seems to have been so for quite a while. There's no real context, and it isn't exactly the best-formatted list ever. That said, I do think that the idea behind it is notable enough. I personally think that it should be rewritten as prose and moved to History of human exploration, but it could also be rewritten as prose and merged with History of human migration (though they are substantially different, especially when it comes to things like oceans or planets). I don't think keeping it as a list is a good idea, even though List of explorers is a good, closely related list, as explorations really should have some explanation and context to them, whereas explorers don't really need that. Ships & Space( Edits) 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would agree with Ships&Space. Overhauling should be done, not deletion.
Lorstaking (
talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to a rewrite as a prose article. But in the 23 years the article has been around, nothing has been done to fix the problem. I am not sure why you believe it will be fixed in another 23 years. A deletion may encourage a new article to be created that is actually notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Common sense, just list any explorations that have their own articles or have articles for the explorers who are notable for making them. Dream Focus 07:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, pretty much per Dream Focus. I would note that a noteworthy exploration need not have its own article to merit inclusion, if it is mentioned and cited in a supertopic article. BD2412 T 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as a low-quality list article duplicating List of explorers. Not opposed to keeping this somewhere outside of mainspace if wanted as a reference for a stand-alone history of exploration article. Walsh90210 ( talk) 00:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm very borderline, but will lean keep because I think the list can be improved. I think it needs to be refocused by being retitled to something like 'List of notable explorations', and it needs a very clear and stringent inclusion criteria that other lists have, for example, List of video games considered the best.
Melmann 07:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Might need some improvement but i think that it could be fixable and should be kept Onlygoodvibez ( talk) 21:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Spaceflight. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Spaceflight|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Spaceflight.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:| watch |
Minotaur VI
- Minotaur VI ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable rocket model; I can't find sourcing beyond the company's website used now in the article. The blog used as the second source isn't a RS either. Delete for lack of sourcing, not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Oaktree,
- I will admit that yes, this article had a lack of sources. There are reputable secondary sources I used during edits of other Minotaur rockets that can be applicable here; I have since added those to the article. The spaceflight101 source is a data sheet from Spaceflight101, which is a now-defunct but otherwise reliable spaceflight news website. I did a little bit of digging just now and found that they have a whole encyclopedia of different launch vehicles ( https://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/). The PDF I linked as a source is actually originally posted on this page: https://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/minotaur-v/. I personally find that to be a valuable secondary source, and I would expect other pages on that site to be useful for future edits of other launch vehicles.
- As for the article's notability, I personally feel it's notable since Minotaur VI is still listed as available on Northrop Grumman's website and has capabilities that other Minotaurs do not have (i.e. can get payload to Mars). However I will say I may have bias as I created this article, so I am absolutely open to opinions from others regarding its usefulness. IanThePineapple ( talk) 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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. Arguments for keeping or merging are stronger than those for deletion. A discussion about merging with History of human migration or another target can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
List of explorations
- List of explorations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list without clear inclusion criteria. It states that it has the most "important" explorations without referencing who calls them important besides the article creator. Even if notable, it would fall under WP:TNT and is invalid as a navigational list as it does not link to articles specifically about those explorations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Archaeology, Geography, Spaceflight, and Transportation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 22:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, at least in its current form. I have no idea what the ambit is supposed to be - what are "state societies"? Does the author have any idea what they are intending, as that term is linked to the utterly uninformative
Complex society? If what is meant is "state-sponsored exploration", then why does it include entires like the hypothetical discovery of Hawaii in late antiquity, or Livingstone's privately funded explorations? No rhyme or reason here. --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 05:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- A society with a state; the opposite of a stateless society. It's a well-defined and widely used term in the social sciences. – Joe ( talk) 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ah so. That should link to Complex society#States then, I guess? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, edit, and update. A 2001 long-term article, the page lists the first sponsored human expeditions of various locals. The topic is notable, links to various expeditionary pages, and groups these expeditions on one page. The criteria needs to be worded differently, but that's a minor point in the overall scope of the page.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 09:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- See
WP:ARTICLEAGE. When it was written is not proof it should be kept.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Essays have some who agree and others who disagree. Early Wikipedia articles which have stood the test of 23 years of time should receive more leeway and correction. This one has a very good premise which can be refined and expanded. Randy Kryn ( talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- See
WP:ARTICLEAGE. When it was written is not proof it should be kept.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, on the one hand, this is a very bare-bones list, and seems to have been so for quite a while. There's no real context, and it isn't exactly the best-formatted list ever. That said, I do think that the idea behind it is notable enough. I personally think that it should be rewritten as prose and moved to History of human exploration, but it could also be rewritten as prose and merged with History of human migration (though they are substantially different, especially when it comes to things like oceans or planets). I don't think keeping it as a list is a good idea, even though List of explorers is a good, closely related list, as explorations really should have some explanation and context to them, whereas explorers don't really need that. Ships & Space( Edits) 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would agree with Ships&Space. Overhauling should be done, not deletion.
Lorstaking (
talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to a rewrite as a prose article. But in the 23 years the article has been around, nothing has been done to fix the problem. I am not sure why you believe it will be fixed in another 23 years. A deletion may encourage a new article to be created that is actually notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Common sense, just list any explorations that have their own articles or have articles for the explorers who are notable for making them. Dream Focus 07:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, pretty much per Dream Focus. I would note that a noteworthy exploration need not have its own article to merit inclusion, if it is mentioned and cited in a supertopic article. BD2412 T 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as a low-quality list article duplicating List of explorers. Not opposed to keeping this somewhere outside of mainspace if wanted as a reference for a stand-alone history of exploration article. Walsh90210 ( talk) 00:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm very borderline, but will lean keep because I think the list can be improved. I think it needs to be refocused by being retitled to something like 'List of notable explorations', and it needs a very clear and stringent inclusion criteria that other lists have, for example, List of video games considered the best.
Melmann 07:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Might need some improvement but i think that it could be fixable and should be kept Onlygoodvibez ( talk) 21:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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.