Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermal Protection System


 * 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 of the debate was kept.

Note that the discussion went on to consider whether this article should be renamed, rewritten or made into a redirect. No clear consensus emerged on that topic. However, those decisions can best be decided on the respective Talk pages and do not need to be decided in an AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thermal Protection System
The "Thermal Protection System" article has been made redundant by the Atmospheric reentry article that includes a section on Thermal Protection Systems and the Space Shuttle program article. It is proposed that the Thermal Protection System article be deleted and replaced with a redirect to the Atmospheric reentry article. Egg plant 04:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nomination, speedily if possible. 211.30.35.62 05:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nomination, agree with speedy if possible (someone who has time and wants to be bold is welcome to, in my opinion...) Georgewilliamherbert 03:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm too tired to be bold. :::hums "holding out for a hero", by Frou Frou, has low standards for heroes::: . Adrian~enwiki (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It absolutely should NOT be deleted. The Space Shuttle program article was way too long. In line with Article size, and How to break up a page, sections are being moved to other articles INCLUDING this TPS article. Other examples of sections moved: NASA Space Shuttle decision, Space Shuttle abort modes.


 * The shuttle TPS is a major component of the orbiter, and unique to the shuttle. This article covers that, not TPS in general. Detailed shuttle TPS info doesn't belong in the Atmospheric reentry article. However this article should probably be renamed "Space shuttle thermal protection system". Joema 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see where you're coming from now. I change my vote to Rename to Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System.  Georgewilliamherbert 00:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Rename as above. - Rudykog 10:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The term "Thermal protection system (TPS)" is normally used in the aerospace industry for both ablative and reusable TPS.  Aeronautical engineers and informed laymen linking into Wikipedia through Google would need to see a disambiguation and redirect link to Atmospheric reentry where ablative TPS is described.  Reusable TPS as "thermal soak" and "passively cooled" TPS is already described under the "Thermal Protection Systems" section of Atmospheric reentry.  The term "ablation" is already redirected to Atmospheric reentry through a disambiguation.  The significance of ablative versus reusable TPS is not provided in the current Thermal Protection System article and would be inappropriate if the article was renamed to Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System.  The best course of action remains to delete Thermal Protection System with a redirect to Atmospheric reentry.  The new content recently added to Thermal Protection System should be transferred to Atmospheric reentry. Egg plant 04:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: First, the Reentry article at 66kb is already over the  recommended size limit. Adding the Thermal Protection System content will make it even bigger. Secondly, there needs to be a dedicated article on shuttle TPS,  just like there's a dedicated article on Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster.  The shuttle TPS is unique, not used by any other current spacecraft, and is a prominent and well-known part of the shuttle system. The article content is already 100% shuttle TPS, not general TPS, so it should be renamed Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System. If you're concerned about people querying on just "Thermal Protection System", let's do a disambiguation page for that. Joema 05:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the answer! I like the way Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster and Solid Rocket Booster are setup.  Have a disambiguation page named Thermal Protection System that redirects to a renamed Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System or Atmospheric reentry.  Concerning the Reentry article going over the  recommended size limit, I'd like to reduce the size of Atmospheric reentry by tossing out "Feathered reentry" but I know people would get worked up over that so I've taken the easy path of ignoring it.  Egg plant 05:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think "Feathered reentry" is too small for a separate article; it wouldn't reduce size that much. How about this:


 * Leave a small section on TPS in the reentry article, put the bulk in a separate article on "Thermal Protection System". That's in line with How to break up a page.


 * Put a top link in the new stand-alone TPS article: This article is about aerospace thermal protection systems. For the U.S. Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System, see: (link).


 * Put a similar top link in the shuttle TPS article pointing to the new TPS article.


 * Fix up any previous references so they point to the right articles.


 * Advantages: avoids going through redirection page for people querying directly on Thermal Protection System.


 * Why not do a disambiguation page? Google shows about 98% of TPS references are either (a) shuttle TPS, or (b) other aerospace TPS. If three or more separate TPS articles are needed, maybe then do a disambig page. What does everybody think? Joema 15:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In my earlier (deleted) reply, I got overly philosophical and went off-topic. I agree that a disambiguation page with redirection is a good solution if the "Thermal Protection System" article is retained.  Egg plant 03:20, 24 February 2006 (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.