Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Spaceflight

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Spaceflight/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Spaceflight[edit]

Hadarou Sare[edit]

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

The article subject is a non-notable entrepreneur and PhD student. I could not find any reliable sources containing significant coverage of the subject. None of the sources currently cited in the article establish notability: [1] and [2] are interviews in trade publications that read like puff pieces. [3] does not have any clear editorial standards, is based on an interview, and also reads like a puff piece. [4] is a bio and abstract for a talk he gave at a seminar. [5] is an interview with the organizers of the same seminar. [6] is the subject's company's website. [7] is an advertising website. [8] is a slideshow about a project that the subject worked on. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Astronomy, Engineering, Spaceflight, Africa, Ivory Coast, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the deletion discussion above, most links given are primary or simple confirmation of employment/biographical info. The sourcing doesn't pass RS guidelines and there isn't much else I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Space Micro Inc[edit]

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

This article was created by an employee and may have been later editor by one or two other employees. It reads as promotional and there are no cited sources other than the company itself. Unclear this company is notable; we have no article on the company that bought it. -- Beland (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Spaceflight. Beland (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was able to find a few seemingly independent sources, but the majority are clearly either written by the company or (in in one case) a closely related company. I couldn't find anything on Google Books or Scholar.

A closer look at the creator's contributions and talk page shows that this user is clearly only on here to promote the company, and has a conflict on interest. The page itself seems to fit within the definition of WP:NOTPROMO. Ships & Space_(Edits) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also can't find any sourcing outside of routine coverage, which can't be used to establish notability per WP: NCOMPANY.

HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Mumford[edit]

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

No sources beyond the ones here, which are not independent. Unfortunately, this means she fails WP:GNG and a lack of google scholar cites means she doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC either. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Management, Spaceflight, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Undisclosed COI by the creator? Looks like they work together. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of explorations[edit]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Ah so. That should link to Complex society#States then, I guess? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
See WP:ARTICLEAGE. When it was written is not proof it should be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment I would agree with Ships&Space. Overhauling should be done, not deletion. Lorstaking (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lunar Panoramic Photography - Apollo 14[edit]

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

I'm a bit conflicted about this nomination - while it's clear a lot of work was put into the article, it appears to fundamentally contradict WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTGALLERY as a mass gallery of images with no coverage in secondary sources. Perhaps this can be transwikied somewhere else? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and United States of America. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the feedback. On the face of it, I would agree that the the article appears to be a gallery - in its current form... It's one of a series featuring the panoramas shot on Apollo and I've been focussed on getting the basics in place first so that I can return and enrich each of them later. I'm a day or so away from completing the Apollo 17 article, but I would stand up the "Lunar Panoramic Photography - Apollo 11" article as an example of the direction I intend to go in. Although that isn't complete either, at least it includes some of those added-value features, such as placing the panoramas in context through the use of maps, and providing commentary as to how the shots came about. (And after Apollo, there's all the panoramas from the automated missions that occurred before and after the manned missions.)

Naturally, having done the work, I think it's a worthy inclusion. If there is a more appropriate format for it to be presented in then I would be happy to transfer it, but, for now, I'd prefer to think of it as moving in the direction of being a 'Catalogue' rather than a 'Gallery'... Usedtoknoweverything (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This almost looks like it satisfies LIST, with some critical discussion about items in the list, a significant lead and a closing paragraph. This could be useful for someone looking at the photos for context of the larger lunar mission. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that there isn't even a single secondary source covering the topic. If there were, I wouldn't have brought this to AfD at all. The article appears compliant with policies, except for notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It would be a tragedy to delete these, but as of now they don't seem to satisfy WP:NLIST. We would want secondary WP:SIGCOV discussing either the set of photographs or the photography techniques used. This certainly does seem to be widely discussed. With a quick Google Scholar search, I found: blog post from NASA, this book, "Training Apollo astronauts in lunar orbital observations and photography" in this edited volume, and possibly this book. I'm leaning keep, since I suspect sources exist; there appear to be hundreds of papers written about Apollo photography, presumably some of them discuss e.g. Apollo 14 specifically. Suriname0 (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]