Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of large reentering space debris


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 14:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

List of large reentering space debris

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability of spacecraft reentries is subjective and mostly controlled by media scaremongering rather than any objective criteria; I therefore believe that this is not an encyclopaedic cross-categorisation.  W.  D.   Graham  (previously GW) 12:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning. You question why such incidents are reported, but that doesn't change the fact that these were all large man-made objects that reentered Earth's atmosphere, and I don't see how the purported subjectivity in why that is reported would translate into subjectivity in what is reported.  Plus there's the fact that this list is maintained by the Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies (the first cite in the article), not exactly a media scaremongering machine from what I can tell.  postdlf (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep While I recognize that this topic is often tinged with media hysteria, this article very specifically avoids that. It easily meets WP:LISTN and as postdf points out, is based on a reliable source.   The Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies is an independent organization involved in federally funded defense and civilian space contracts.   That organization has been involved in every launch vehicle in the U.S. inventory in the past several decades.   The list is quantitative, based on mass, not subjective nor is it based on media hysteria.  I did take the WP:BOLD move of adding Phobos-Grunt to the list, with references to it's de-orbit date and mass (within the tolerances of the rest of the list). If there are still concerns about the reliability of this source, CORDS is recognized as the experts on this, when something falls to Earth, CORDS is called upon to analyze it. LA Times article on CORDS.  This organization is also recognized by NASA for their research on space junk Space Debris resource list, NASA HQ--RadioFan (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment added an additional (book) source for mass and de-orbit dates on some of the larger objects (space stations).--RadioFan (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Both notable and verifiable. Grillo7 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just don't see what makes a large piece of debris falling to earth more notable than a small piece doing so, other than the media getting hysterical about how it is probably going to hit something (which it never does). And while we're at it, how are "large" and "debris" defined for the purpose of this list? Why, for example, is 1973-027B (a 39 tonne S-II) not included? -- W.  D.   Graham  (previously GW) 16:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment as a collaborative encyclopedia, I of course have no problem with your adding S-II to this list with proper citation.  If you'd be more comfortable with a more precise definition of what does and does not go on the list, make a proposal, perhaps 10000 kg.  Technically "large", in the world of space debris, is generally defined as anything over 1 kg so I dont think we want to use that.  The article wikilinks to space debris which provides a sufficient definition.--RadioFan (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the problems we had with the launch system comparison lists, I would be somewhat concerned about specifying an arbitrary cutoff which cannot be backed up by reliable sources as being used elsewhere in the field. It is also odd that the article excludes things like ATVs since they were never debris, despite the fact that their reentries were identical to those of, for example, the defunct Salyut stations. -- W.  D.   Graham  (previously GW) 21:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – Notable topic, per frequent news coverage of each major event. Yes, the article needs to include a definition of what is meant by "large". The NASA Orbital Debris FAQ defines it as any debris larger than 10 cm, which to me is still pretty small (compared to the examples given). Regards, RJH (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2012 (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.