Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UoSAT satellites


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

List of UoSAT satellites

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

UoSAT is a navbox already found on the bottom of every UoSAT page, and this list is not actually linked from any of the six UoSAT articles. Primefac (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: This list page really seems rather silly (I hope there is no WP:STRICTRULE forbidding the use of "silly"); since it all fits in the navbox, it is completely unnecessary. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete MartinZ02 (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem I see is that UoSAT redirects to this list, so we'd lose that as a search term if we deleted this index, however short it is. Any suggestions about how to fix that navigational issue? postdlf (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The UoSAT article is essentially an orphan, with no other articles pointing to it. It should probably be redirected to Surrey Satellite Technology, since they're the ones that build 'em. Primefac (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like you might be right. The individual UoSAT articles are currently listed there under "see also"; maybe give them their own section at Surrey Satellite Technology, and redirect this list there as well? postdlf (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2016 (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.