Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunter's Space Page


 * 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. I am not seeing that this has the reliable sources to meet WP:WEB W.marsh 13:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Gunter's Space Page

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Notibility - Davandron | Talk 00:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Numerous references on Google for both reputable and reliable sources.Shoessss 01:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: Appearing in google isn't reputable; read the things that pop up and they are people listing sites or just garbage. - Davandron | Talk 03:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarifying: Please show us the links that you find reputable. When I look at this google search, I only see one result that is an accolade, where Gunter was a "space site of the week for May 1997" and that site (Students for the Exploration and Development of Space) was promoting two sites every week for a decade (not exact exclusive). - Davandron | Talk 13:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * **Comment: :Please note that the first is actually here in Wikipedia where Gunter's Space Page is actually listed in the reference material. I would also point out the Aerospaceguide as a reliable source.  Do I need to continue:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur_(rocket_stage) seds.org/spaceviews/award/9705.html www.firstmatter.com/newsletter/sidebar.asp www.astronautix.com/craft/uraeptor.htm www.aerospaceguide.net/spacelinks.html Shoessss 13:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For example following NASA and governmental Sites and documents use Gunter's Space Flight as References
 * NASA's space flight calendar
 * US Centennial Of Flight Commission:
 * http://www.dodig.osd.mil/Audit/reports/fy02/02-154.pdf
 * https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2003/afit/AFIT-GSO-ENY-03-01.pdf
 * US Airforce High Frontier Magazine:
 * http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc/smith.pdf
 * i hope this helps. --Armchair Astronaut 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am confused; it seems you are saying since the site is used as a reference, then it should be an article entry? How does this satisfy the notibility criteria? - Davandron | Talk 01:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Davandron | Talk, No, you are right in that aspect. However, I thought I complied with your request for additional reliable sources as both I and --Armchair Astronaut provided in our response.  Let me ask it in a different way.  Would you like additional sources cited other than the ones mentioned above? Shoessss talk


 * Keep Satisfies WP:WEB for notability. CIreland 02:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above -Drdisque 06:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notebale. No reason to delete. Billy227, Review my account!! talk contribs sndbx usbx 18:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal WP:WEB says
 * 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself
 * I see no proof of this, nor is it mentioned in the article.
 * 2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization
 * I haven't seen this on the site or in the article entry.
 * 3. < doesn't appear relivent. >
 * Additionally, WP:WEB states: Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance. 
 * At current, the article is minimal / missing in this regard.
 * I love the site and have used it as a reference, but don't think it warrents its own wiki entry, based on the above. - Davandron | Talk 03:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The following is copied from User talk:Armchair Astronaut's user page: Hi there, welcome to wikipedia. I'm going to flag [the Gunter's Space Page] you made as recommended for delete; it doesn't seem to be appropriate for the wikipedia and almost like an ad for the website. Perhaps you can help explain why you felt this article should be created? - Davandron | Talk 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with Davandron. LanceBarber 05:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, if i my entry does not follow the rules for pages on wikipedia. As i am doing research on the topic of the history of spaceflight, i think, that Gunter's Space Page, as well as the already included Encyclopedia Astronautica and Jonathan's Space Report are the most comprehensive and reliable sources for data on spaceflight. Although it is a privat website (as well as the other two mentioned) i think it is worth mentioning as a reference work on this admittedly very special topic. I have noticed, that this page is mentioned as reference also on a large number of spaceflight articles here in Wikipedia (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Gunter's_Space_Page) ---Armchair Astronaut 08:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is very good that Gunter's external site is referenced by many internal articles, along with thousands of other external references, but that does not constitute the reasoning for Gunter's having it own Wiki article. Think of this... would you be able to write an article on Gunter's that could be of significance such one might find the information important enough to be in Britannica or World Book or Funk and Wagnalls? If so, charge ahead. Just because a external site is very popular does not warrant being an article on its own. Side note, I added a new article a few months ago and was challenged as you are; this forced me to rewrite the aritcle in such of way it as it added to an encyclopedia environment. Find other articles that parallel the scope of Gunter's and persue its development. Good Luck.  LanceBarber 15:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete as per Davandron. I'd really like to keep this one, but can't really think of a good Wiki reason to do so.  Ford MF 06:46, 16 May 2007 (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.