Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Launcher 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 was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Space Launcher System

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This stub has been totally unsourced since its inception in 2011. I performed a WP:BEFORE search looking for books written in the 20th century, as any significant 1960s project should be covered in that scope of publications.[1] I found nothing about this project, only a few mentions of a generic "space launcher system" that could be developed in Europe or Russia in the future. Consequently, given the high probability of confusion with the current Space Launch System, this article should be removed. Apparently there is some real history of discussions about the Titan I potential upgrades, but there is no indication that an actual project plan called "Space Launcher System" ever existed, and if it did it would not meet WP:GNG until ample coverage in WP:RS can be exhibited. — JFG ^talk 12:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We can confirm its existence – it gets a passing mention in Historical Guide to NASA and the Space Program, but only to say that it is a USAF project from the 1960s and nothing to do with the NASA program. SpinningSpark 09:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 04:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The creator of the article is too pissed with you all to come here himself, but tells me that the source was Heppenheimer. He cannot remember the name of the book, but it may have been The Space Shuttle Decision: Nasa's Search for a Reusable Space Vehicle. On the basis of that, I think we should AGF that this actually is reliably sourced, even if the source is currently uncertain. I have put in a request for verification of this source at WP:LIB. SpinningSpark 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The Space Shuttle Decision is available at the Internet Archive. It does not contain the search term, but does describe a USAF launcher with boosters which may be the same thing. Heppenheimer's Countdown : A History of Space Flight, which I have on loan, also does not contain the term. SpinningSpark 15:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: Many thanks for the background information. I don't think Wikipedia should keep an article based on a made-up term, especially as it can easily be confused with the Space Launch System. Certainly this project could be mentioned in articles about Titan I, Titan III, USAF, or the Space Shuttle. There's not enough material to salvage for a dedicated article. — JFG ^talk 10:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: It's not a made-up term. The NASA source I linked in my first comment uses this exact name (capitalised as a proper noun and identified as a USAF 1960s project). SpinningSpark 10:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was only referring to the Heppenheimer books, which apparently discuss the USAF project without naming it that. The "Historical Guide" source only mentions "Space Launcher System" in a short note in its "Space Launch System" entry, to warn readers against confusion. We can't hang our article title on this only. Irrespective of the name, we are far from demonstrating WP:GNG yet. I have downloaded the 1999 book from Internet Archive and looked for passages discussing boosters: they mostly debate the pros and cons of reusability and refer to possible evolutions of Titan III. What is the exact passage you referred to when saying the book describes "a USAF launcher with boosters which may be the same thing"? I'd like to see which concept we are talking about. Note on page 353 the authors state: This diversity of boosters meant that there now was no clear reason to choose any of them. The wide range of alternatives recalled the era of the late 1960s, when a hundred flowers had bloomed and when neither NASA nor the Air Force had yet developed a convincing idea of how a shuttle should look. If this USAF concept was indeed one of those "hundred flowers", why should it be elevated above others? Engineers from various contractors discussed plenty of variants, but it does not look like this one got any substantial-enough traction to become encyclopedic. — JFG ^talk 10:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've challenged me, I'm not quite sure what I was looking at when I said that. It was probably the drawing on page 87. But on a closer look, that is the Titan IIIM for which we already have an article. EDIT: There is also a discussion of USAF design research on the preceding pages, but it is far from clear whether any of it has to do the subject here. I'm ok with a merge and redirect or dab page to a suitable article. SpinningSpark 11:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article creator could shed some light on the naming? @Maury Markowitz: You wrote: It was from one of Heppenheimer's books, perhaps The Space Shuttle Decision. But it was over 7 years ago, I really can't say. Looking at those books, we have not seen the term "Space Launcher System", but we have seen discussion of various engineering options by the USAF, NASA and industry contractors. Do you have first-hand knowledge besides what you remember reading in such books? The contents of the article as it stands could be folded into Titan I, Titan IIIC, Titan IIIM, Space Shuttle and X-20 Dyna Soar. However the assertions made must be sourced, and the article title must go if we can't find well-sourced corroboration. Any help appreciated. — JFG ^talk 13:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so others can say something, and the current two participants can continue to "debate".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never mind the rocket science minutiae above, an article with zero sources in the actual article even after three weeks of AfD will realistically never get any and therefore needs to go per WP:V. Sandstein 18:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is Space Launching System. While I have found a couple of usage as Launcher, I think Launching is the correct word. Of course the overused same TLA of SLS for similar systems makes it difficult to find the right sources. The article Aerojet M-1 mentions Launcher which is probably this article, but no inline sources so it is hard to know which source to use. This article should be Moved/Renamed if sources agree. StrayBolt (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.