Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project 921-3


 * 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. Procedural keep as the consensus is not to delete. Rename/merge/rewrite are reasonable calls. Tone 08:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Project 921-3

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is nothing but a synthesis of published materials with crystal balls. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This could be merged into one of the other articles on the Chinese space program, such as Shenzhou program. The argument for deletion is poor because Wikipedia is by policy largely a synthesis of published materials, and I don't see too much speculation. Anything that is WP:CBALL can simply be edited out, it is not an argument for deletion unless the entire article is WP:CBALL. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge is a good outcome for now, I'm neutral if it comes down to keep or delete. Perhaps Draftify, userify, or delete without prejudice for un-deletion or re-creation is acceptable rather than a "no consensus" outcome or multiple re-listings.  Note that there is a Swedish version of this article.  Rationale:  Topic probably passes WP:N but not everything that is "Wiki-notable" SHOULD have its own stand-alone article if the content is better placed in another article. Also, I have a personal bias for wanting to keep the edit history for technical articles like this that might someday be clearly worth having their own article. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to merge, improve, draftify, or delete...

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - We have an article on Project 921-2, namely Tiangong program. Searching for 'Chinese spaceplane program' yields several reliable sources for the existence of significant activity in the general area documented by the article, but it seems pretty patchy. I think the problem in need of solving is what organisation of the material related to China's space program best supports developing good articles, which is not necessarily the same as the categories the Chinese aerospace sector use to talk about it. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to something broader, such as China's spaceplane program. With this change, the GNG threshold can easily be passed and the scope of the article does not depend on the unclear limits of Project 921-3. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Probably needs a new title but WP:GNG is met. Problems identified by the nom can be resolved by editing; deletion is not required. ~Kvng (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2020 (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.