Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space logistics


 * 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. X clamation point  03:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Space logistics

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

This article has "multiple issues", but more than that, there seems to be nothing encyclopedic or important about the subject matter. This article is completely WP:OR. The talk page has a banner that says this article was an "educational assignment"; indeed, it is written poorly and not in the tone of a formal encyclopedia. I cannot see how this article should remain. It needs a complete rewrite, to be sure, but its orphan status seems to indicate it doesn't need to belong at all. Finally, the aticle has existed with "multiple issues" for about a year. No one is fixing this article because 1) it needs too much work and 2) nothing relevant links to it. This should be deleted. Timneu22 (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep "Space logistics", that is getting stuff up to outer space, seems like a notable topic to me. It is called that in a couple of the sources. Is it known under another name?  Redddogg (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: but what about this article? That is the question. It is terrible on all levels. If it is kept, it needs a complete rewrite. It would be better to start from nothing. Timneu22 (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: AFD is supposed to decide on the topic of an article, not the article in its current state. See WP:DELETION: if it is practically possible to fix the problems of the article, then we are required to do so in preference to deletion.  What reason is there that this article cannot be fixed? (I have no opinion either way, myself) JulesH (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This article's topic doesn't convey any actual meaning; it's more a title of a high school paper (which it appears to be) rather than an actual encyclopedic topic that someone would try to find. I don't believe the topic is valid, and the article is pure trash. This is why I have nominated it for deletion. Timneu22 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep – The page topic is suitably notable and is worthy of an article. The current content needs refinement and citations, rather than deletion. I suggest raising the issue of this article's improvement on the appropriate WikiProject talk page.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep ...and then do some work on it to improve the article to a reasonable standard. Anaxial (talk) 13:55, 31 March 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.