Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starship HLS


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator, and would be a snow keep. Mike Peel (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Starship HLS

 * – ( View AfD View log )

In my opinion, although the subject is fairly notable, pretty much the entirety of this article is covered by (and copied over from) the Artemis program and SpaceX Starship articles. Frankly, I believe we haven't had enough information on the vehicle for it to warrant a separate article just yet. I believe that in the future, as we have more information on the actual vehicle, this article would be warranted. Osunpokeh (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

64.121.103.144 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have articles for Dynetics HLS and Integrated Lander Vehicle. Those lost out on the $2.9 billion HLS contract and it isn't clear if they have any future. If we have articles for the losers, then we should have article for the winner. Article was a redirect until today 22 April, seems to me like we should allow time for page to develop and work out where detailed and summary information go. C-randles (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic is clearly notable, and covered by many reliable sources. It also clearly belongs to Wikipedia. I am not sure what's the basis for this AfD really. --Ita140188 (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable subject per nom. I really don't see a valid WP:DEL-REASON here. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG as per current coverage. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely notable per WP:GNG. Can't imagine that a new US$2.9 billion expenditure of taxpayrer money on a new model of spacecraft that includes TWO flights to the Moon, with one of those flights carrying two astronauts as passengers, would not be worthy of a Wikipedia article. As for having enough information?  The article has 16 sources, nearly all secondary.  It's been in the news for a year and a half now.  Wikipedia has articles on garage bands with only a couple of sources from local news media.  N2e (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with previous keep votes. They won the contract and it's different enough from normal Starship to merit a separate article. Rainclaw7 (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that the article started largely as a copy of other articles is not a problem per se; it's true that we don't want duplication, and if it were likely that this article would merely duplicate information from elsewhere it should be deleted. But this is not the case. The subject is notable and there is widespread interest about it, I think it will quickly grow to have a life of it's own. Perhaps the creation of the article was a bit premature, given the scarcity of details about the vehicle, but the prematurity is not bad enough to violate WP:TOOSOON. Tercer (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I was actually going to create a draft about Starship HLS. I think that this is a mistake proposing a deletion. I suggest to decide not to delete it but revisit it as the article matures.
 * Keep, A notable topic, article has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as above arguments have already stated BlunanNation (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep While it was made early and we dont have much info now, that will not always be the case and it won't be the case for too long, and as the only HLS proposal selected it is definitely notable Kadermonkey (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep A very notable step in the program; different from prior Artemis work; different from StarshipFeldercarb (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep While there are similarities between this article and those about other Starship variants, it is a distinct and notable enough spacecraft to merit its own article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm really late to this discussion. So far, it appears that the consensus solution of reducing the SpaceX Starship and Artemis program and adding redirects here seems good. Withdraw AfD.


 * 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.