Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of some satellites launched since 1960


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

List of some satellites launched since 1960

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Violates WP:NOT; WP is not for indiscriminate lists of stuff. mhking (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Delete as a list with no criteria for inclucion. Possible speedy deletion as no context/test page. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A list of satellites seems reasonable to me. The first was launched in 1957 so why start the list in 1960? Does WP already have a list? Steve Dufour (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a fairly arbitrary start-point, I agree, maybe thats why its a "List of some satellites". Anyhoo, WP has these, more defined, lists already - List of satellites in geosynchronous orbit, List of Earth observation satellites and List of satellites which have provided data on Earth's magnetosphere. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A list of early satellites might be useful, like before 1970 or so. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete- arbitrary and pointless list. As Dylan notes, we already have several satellite-related lists with clearly defined inclusion criteria. This one is redundant to those, and not very useful. Reyk  YO!  20:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. First of all, the use of "some" in the title indicates this list doesn't have any clear criteria for inclusion.  Second, I can't think of any good reason to use 1960 as the cutoff point, since as mentioned above the first satellites were launched only three years before.  A general List of satellites might be appropriate; this one isn't. –Grondemar 21:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Welcome to Wikipedia, User:Segunadyefa. Needless to say, Wikipedia already has lots of articles about satellites, and you may be able to offer useful contributions to those.  This one runs afoul of several rules, the main one being the original synthesis problem of selecting "some" satellites from all of the ones that have been launched over the last 52 years.  This one would be a delete.  That said, I think that Wikipedia should, if it hasn't done so already, make a project that tries to create as comprehensive a record of satellite launches, each one individually cited, starting with the year 1957 (a redirect to Sputnik, obviously) and continuing for each year thereafter.  I recall looking at a 1970 Information Please Almanac where there was a listing of each launch up through 1969, and thinking "they couldn't do that now".  Wikipedia could do that now.  There probably is something already, but "if there ain't, there oughta be".  The number that have been launched is too many for any single list.  Mandsford (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Further comment As it turns out we have an entire series of articles called 1957 in spaceflight, 1958 in spaceflight, etc., that serve the purpose of the most comprehensive listing of launches to be found anywhere. All interested authors should consider contributing to those articles. Mandsford (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Question/comment Perhaps I'm missing something basic but why is 1960 important? Sputnik launched just a few years earlier in 1957, so this is pretty close to purporting to be a list of every satellite ever launched. I'd be more inclined to keep a list of every satellite than a list with an arbitrary criteria for inclusion that is 95% complete.  Them From  Space  06:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Let the satellite articles be contained within their own pages. This is the worst kind of forking we can have. It engenders inaccuracy, duplicate edits, and hard-to-verify accuracy. Shadowjams (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arbitrarily defined and incomplete list. Better to stick with the more clearly defined lists already available, or create a truly comprehensive list if that is feasible. --RL0919 (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2010 (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.