Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpaceX Starship development


 * 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship development

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Well, there's a ton of explaining need for deleting a C-Class article...

So, I think that this article should be deleted, not merged in my opinion, because:
 * 1) It contains excessive fancruft. Sources here are very low quality (fan websites, @elonmusk tweets, etc.), and almost unreadable to a normal reader;
 * 2) There is a better version of the article which is shorter, more perfected, and better written, which is here;
 * 3) This article isn't easily improve by any means, because of the amount of cruft and volume; and
 * 4) Dispersing efforts to two separate article is not ideal at all.

Thoughts? Here's an old discussion about merging two articles together, here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. This material is notable. It was originally the "development" section of the main SpaceX Starship article. The reason this it was separated it precisely because it was lengthy and detailed. The new "developnent" section in the main article can be trimmed further and some material can be moved here. The problem is that Starship is still under rapid development, so what is happening today seems to be much more relevant to the main article that what happened five years ago. But five year hence, this new stuff will look like more boring cruft in the main article. As an encyclopedia, the main article should evolve into a stable coherent description of the evolved system suitable for a general reader, but the history should be available with all its gory details here in this article. That said, this article has not been improved much since it was hacked out of the main article, so it needs attention. -Arch dude (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. As per Arch dude above. Yes there is a lot of fancruft, but Starship has potential to radically change our space abilities and if that happens we may well want to keep details of the development which will in future be a different perspective than the Starship article concentrating on the future current situation. C-randles (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and Improve: I agree with @Arch dude's and @C-randles's statements.
 * Wikipedia is a source of information for a lot of people and if the information in this article is not here anymore, Wikipedia won't be complete. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 19:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Consider applying WP:10YT, it is very likely that we will want coverage of this topic. And just plain old WP:SIGCOV, a ton has been written specifically about this topic in WP:RS, so I think it is plain that this deserves an article. For #2 and #4, it is reasonable to have an article about something, and another article about its development history. For example, Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and Construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (both GA). For #1, that was the case for SpaceX Starship just a few months ago. For #3, this is nowhere near the level of WP:TNT in my opinion. Leijurv (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge anything of value to the Space X Starship article and then redirect to "SpaceX_Starship". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Merging that page with SpaceX_Starship will make that page too big. It's better the way it is now. The Page Maker II (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: - it's notable, so why should it be deleted? as for quality - it's not good, but maybe when more serious sources would be available the article would be rewritten. Artem.G (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, I will rewrite this article :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just gonna do a snowball closure and start improving with my experience with SpaceX Starship. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the discussion closed now? The Page Maker II (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2021 (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.