Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Review of United States Human Space Flight


 * 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   redirect to Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Review of United States Human Space Flight

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

POV fork of Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee  G W … 07:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to original article. In fact, I may even do it soon. – B.hotep •talk• 07:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see my response within the discussion page of Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Review_of_United_States_Human_Space_Flight_Plans_Committee --Medic463 (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect as simple fork. I'd have no problem if B.Hotep was bold and went ahead. No offense intended toward Medic463, but he seems intent on pushing the possible conclusions of these reviews, which is not appropriate given there have been no 3rd party sources I've seen or that have been presented which also discuss these outcomes. If something does appear, then it isn't unreasonable to present what is reported (if the source is appropriate). Until then, leave this out. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for the support on the "Conclusions" matter Hunster, I will bare in mind what you have said and keep my eye out for good sources. I am also willing to remove this section out of the new page. With regard to article deletion CONSIDER THIS: The Review of US Human Space Flight is a very important topic in world history, and mega-important within Space Explorations history - for example it could conclude to put an astronaut on mars (when they put a man on the moon it was an event that 600 million people watched), or to push forward plans for a base on the moon. Ok this is speculation but it is not unreasonable that they may conclude this. And to have the page "The Review of US Human Space Flight" in the wiki deletion category next to "Kitchen and Bathrooms" is unbelievable. If anything the "Review of Human Space Flight Plans Committee" page should be deleted (I mean how important is that!), or become a section in the "Review of US Human Space Flight" article. Change is not a bad thing. --Medic463 (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've altered and improved the article, deleting the conclusions. --Medic463 (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to original article.Uksam88 (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect. There is not yet a demonstrated need for two articles, one about the review and the other about the committee conducting the review. Conceivably at some future time article size concerns could motivate a split along those lines, but both these articles are currently stubs at best! (sdsds - talk) 19:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be a merge and redirect - but to the correct page. In my neutral opinion, the "Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans" is the important topic of information here and should be the title of the page.  Surely the committee should be a sub-topic within this page as the committee would not even exist without the review - they are a serial fork.  And P.S. this page title is wrong anyway, the correct title should be  "Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans"  --Medic463 (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would still prefer the full title (including "committee"), as that is the official name of the board conducting the review. -- G W … 23:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (Well, actually.... Although it is the "Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans", the official name of the committee really is, "Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee." The documents defining these names are published, cited in both articles, and clear to read for anyone who cares to do so. In one case "United States" is spelled out; in the other it isn't. (sdsds - talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC))


 * But Sims, your argument is that you prefer the title (including committee) "because that is the official name of the board conducting the review". Well that is great - if for some strange, unknown reason the board are more important than the review itself.  Your logic suggests that the board of Kellog's is more important then Kellog's itself, and I don't see any Kellog's board wiki pages.  The important information can be transfered.--Medic463 (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Have transfered the information but haven't added "Plans" to the title because is still up for deletion and think only an admin can do that. - Looks good! check it out Review of United States Human Space Flight --Medic463 (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * From the 3 or 4 editors (people?) in the world that care about this, it appears that no one wants 2 pages. And I'm getting a vibe that anyone who has been following this discussion has either quit wikipedia altogether or topped themselves.  Anyway I propose the following:
 * A new Wikipedia page created entitled the "Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans"
 * Transfer of information from Review of United States Human Space Flight including sub-section of committee and its members, to the new page
 * Speedy Deletion of Review of United States Human Space Flight and Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee once the new page has been created
 * Allowing 24 hours before go-ahead, to allow last minute sensible and justifiable arguments, which takes into account everything of what has been said on both this page and the discussion of Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee page, taking into consideration that we are all on the same team and that a new article would also be better for the general public who use Wikipedia to try and find information--Medic463 (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your proposal violates the GFDL so I'll have to oppose it anyway, but why that title? -- G W … 10:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to a request for clarification posted on my talk page, this violation is because the deletion of two articles following a merger to a third title would leave no edit history, which is a requirement in order for contributors to be properly credited for their work. -- G W … 14:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And there are some very good reasons on this AFD page as to the name change. And the work around for GFDL compliance would be for some kind of name change / redirect, but I'm not convinced anyone really cares about the GFDL or takes it seriously anyway.   --Medic463 (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ← I still fail to see the point of moving the original article. Perhaps an RM could be conducted once this closes to gauge consensus, but I don't think there is an issue with the current title. -- G W … 14:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree to the deletion of this article and an RM to gauge consensus on the title of the committee page. PS if I find out that an editor is actually on the committee and wants the page titled in their favor for financial gain or other personal benefit, then I will beat them to a pulp be very upset -- Medic  [ talk ] 20:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC) and / or spam all the appropriate wiki detection pages.--Medic463 (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Medic, if you make another threat like that, I will indef block you. I don't care if it was serious or meant in jest, that was entirely inappropriate. I would strongly suggest you retract that. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 16:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hunster, you would have to be quick on the block button to beat me to it. I have had just about enough of Medic's attitude and single-minded lone crusade and acts of bad faith. – B.hotep •talk• 17:20, 28 June 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.