Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space shuttle launch countdown

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The result was Speedy keep – nomination withdrawn. --Nat682 (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Space shuttle launch countdown

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

Completely inaccurate (did anyone ever actually read the sources?) and, when made accurate, would just in essence be a copy of information already presented in the exact same form on NASA's Countdown 101 page, which should be linked to as an external link instead of copy-and-pasting it onto Wikipedia. WP:NOTCSD #10 certainly applies. Nat682 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Opening paragraph is based on 4 references. While the Milestones section does come largely from the Countdown 101 reference, it looks to be supplemented with information from the Science.ksc.nasa.gov reference and a press release specific to STS-97 so CSD#10 (or any other speedy criteria) does not apply here.

The nominator calls the article completely inaccurate but I'm not seeing that. Does it need some help, sure. The nominator corrected one section title (2 hour vs 20 minute holds) ~~and I just fixed the section titles that incorrectly identify non-hold milestones as holds. Other than that~~ I'm not seeing this article s "completely inaccurate".--RadioFan (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not fix any of the section titles. They are still bullshit. And I didn't say anything about CSD10, I said that WP:NOTCSD #10 would apply once it was made accurate. --Nat682 (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's correct, I looked back at those titles and they are accurate, they lump multiple items from the references provided together to segment things out by holds, which is a bit easier to read and understand here. It also reduces the number of sections. No need to have a counting section and a hold section here. We'll leave that to the reference. If you have a suggestion for improving the presentation of this information, the article's talk page would be a good place to hash it out but you might want to tone it down a bit here. No need to get so agressive. Let's focus on making a good article here.--RadioFan (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs a lot of cleanup, but it is salvageable. Furthermore, there is absolutely no way in which NOTCSD#10 could be used to support an argument to delete anything. I would suggest that it is the nominator who needs to read what he is citing. --G W… 19:52, 10 August 2011 (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.