Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Solar System probes by country


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 21:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Solar System probes by country

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page -- a spinoff of List of Solar System probes -- seems to have been left in a part-completed state, but I'm not sure I agree with the need for it even if it were still being actively constructed. I think we already have enough maintenance problems trying to keep the existing "list of space missions" pages up to date and in sync (see Space exploration lists and timelines). I don't think we need yet another article presenting exactly the same data in a different way and requiring separate upkeep. I think List of Solar System probes suffices. 86.152.242.27 (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC). Nomination completed for IP editor. snigbrook (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As the proposer, I would just like to emphasise a point that might not have been very clear in my original rationale. It might be assumed that the historical information about these missions is fairly static, but as one who has been active in the maintenance of List of Solar System probes over several years, I can confirm that this is not the case. There are still omissions, errors and inadequacies being sorted out. I can guarantee that edits made to List of Solar System probes will not be correctly propagated to List of Solar System probes by country, and vice versa. In an ideal world, the data would be stored in one place and would be sliceable and diceable to suit the user's requirements. That does not seem to be possible given the facilities available within Wikipedia. 86.136.194.122 (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC).

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * keep yes, it's useless until expanded in some manner--but that seems to be the intention--to divide them up. It might not be necessary to do so if the main list were sortable, but the multiple sponsorship of many missions would seem to make this quite tricky. Given that it's only a month old, there is no deadline.    DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the deadline expired when someone reconsidered whether it was necessary to divide up a perfectly good list by country. There's a difference between only a month old and work ceased a month ago.  I can't remember the Latin phrase that inclusionists refer to, but it has something to do with not losing knowledge.  Well, no knowledge will be lost when this xerox copy is erased.  Mandsford (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, because this can be accomplished by correctly formatting List of Solar System probes as a sortable list, so that it can be sorted by—guess what—country (and any other issue value such as success, date or planet). Arsenikk (talk)  20:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As Arsenikk points out, this list can be sortable by country if formatted to do so. It's no use having two articles when one can do the job of both.  Them From  Space  20:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna go on a limb and keep, in rare agreement with DGG. =D Basically, he says what I have to say. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So what you have to say is that "it's useless" but that "there is no deadline?" I would understand if this was something original, but I can't figure out what this is adding to Wikipedia.  I don't agree with deleting something for the sake of deletion, nor for keeping something for the sake of inclusion.    Mandsford (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * More to the point, Mandsford, is that it's useless until expanded in some manner - quoth DGG. I have to confess that I'm working partially off of WP:INTERESTING, but for this purpose I'm wanting to ignore the rules a little.  Personally, I'd like to see it fleshed out a bit, and then revisit later.  Granted, though, that based on the current concensus, this probably isn't going to happen.... -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Changing !vote to delete, as this is, indeed, a duplicate of a currently existing article. We need to format the current article correctly instead.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no information in this list that isn't already in List of Solar System probes. It is incomplete, and I see no reason to maintain the same data in two places. –  j ak s mata  22:20, 24 November 2009 (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.