Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Direct Launch Vehicle

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. W.marsh 23:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Direct Launch Vehicle

Direct Launch Vehicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a borderline case for deletion, I think. It could become notable, but at the moment the subject is being discussed only on its originating website, and on NASA Spaceflight. I am concerned that this is being put across as more than what it is, which is a grassroots proposal having no official support. It has been listed in categories such as [Category:NASA] and [Category: Space Shuttle program], which is clearly inappropriate. I have removed these, but may have missed other instances. MLilburne 15:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite, don't delete. If you think it's being passed off as more than it is, then fix the article- don't nuke it. -Toptomcat 16:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping for other people's opinions on whether it was notable or not. It could potentially be considered advertising or original research. MLilburne 16:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• shrug* My opinion is that it's notable. -Toptomcat 17:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. Notability (WP:N) is not just a matter of opinion. One reference does not exist (click and nothing is found) and the other is someone's website. To have an article, there is a need for verifiable references to multiple independent reliable sources. Supporters of the project can call a press conference, show off a model and some animation of the concept, get endorsements from noted scientists, get this written up in the New York Times and covered by CBS and CNN, and then you are good to go with an article, but we do not accept using a Wikipedia article to bolster a concept which has no other notability. Edison 18:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no shortage of proposed paper rockets out there, and having an article (especially having references to it like the one in Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle) really does seem to assert a significance this particular proposal doesn't seem to actually possess. I'd have no problem with resurrecting the article if it got widely picked up, or was even just used as a comparison in a formal study by anyone other than its proposers... but not as the state of play is now. There are significant, influential, and widely discussed forms of SDLV which never got past concept stages - Zubrin's Ares, some of the obscurer Shuttle-C designs - but that shouldn't mean any proposed alternate design is notable, and I don't see this as either having had any significant uptake or recieved any critical attention from the wider community.

Even rewriting the article, to me, won't solve the fundamental problem - that there isn't significant secondary evidence that this is important.

I've poked someone over this who should hopefully know more than I do about it, and asked for a comment. Shimgray | talk | 18:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Just for further information, the NASA Spaceflight article is here. MLilburne 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but rewrite - This is real; I know one of the people who worked on the proposal, and it is published and being covered in the aerospace trade press etc. We do have other articles on proposed or in-development spacecraft (and a few which never got beyond the drawing board). That's not unusual here. In terms of whether the article misrepresents how "official" this proposal is (it's in competition to NASA's official Moon/Mars launcher program), that's a fair criticism, but should be addressed by a rewrite. We don't want a misleading article, but we don't want to delete all the proposed spacecraft articles either, and this is current, real, and newsworthy (at least, for now). Georgewilliamherbert 19:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be really helpful if you (or someone) could add a couple of citations from the aerospace trade press to the article. I don't reguarly read that sort of publication so couldn't manage it myself. MLilburne 16:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Don't Delete. As the guy who's name appears on the actual DIRECT Proposal itself, Ross Tierney, I would like to just say that this is real. It has NOT currently been chosen by NASA's own administration, but is being considered seriously at this time. Other organisations are also investigating it including the DoD & The Mars Society, and are strongly favouring our approach over NASA's current one. At this time, DIRECT is simply a proposal for an alternative direction for NASA to consider, and is rather appropriate given the fact the current Ares-I system it would replace is documented as falling short of reaching it's expected targets. While I have had nothing to do with writing the wiki entry myself, it does not appear to me to be "passing itself off" as anything more than a proposal. If the piece needs a re-write, that's okay by me. I will try it myself. But I certainly wish the wiki entry remains available to any and all who might be interested. Ross B Tierney 17:45, 7 November 2006 (EDT)

• Keep It's a real proposal that I've heard of. Robovski 03:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Significant changes have been made to the original article and this should no longer be considered a case for deletion as originally claimed. User:Batoom 10:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and continue rewriting. Well, I've been convinced by the discussion and some of the edits that have been made. I would still like to see more outside context added to the article, though, and more sources. MLilburne 10:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment1 - Admins, the nominator has changed his mind here; this can be closed as withdrawn from AFD. Georgewilliamherbert 01:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment2 - Yes, it deserves more sources, and I will attempt to add some over the weekend. Georgewilliamherbert 01:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I have done a fairly extensive re-write. It may still not be perfect, but I think it's a lot better. As for more extenal context: That will come with some major announcements due in the next month or so. Ross B Tierney 06:21, 8 November 2006 (EDT)

CommentThe article looks better, but I still do not see multiple independent mainstream coverage. I see an article at a website http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/ which sounds like an official NASA site, but is apparently a private commercial site not connected with the government. Is it NASA or a private website about spaceflight? Still just counts as one source even if it is NASA and zero if private. And people personally vouching for it counts for zero, zip, nada. If there have been lots of publications about it, then add them to the article, don't just make unsubstantiated claims they exist. The creator of the proposal writing about it smacks of a vanity article and actually counts against inclusion. I am all for innovative spaceflight proposals, but the article is still nonnotable and original research until the notability is proved by multiple independent reliable and verifiable mainstream coverage. We are not a medium of first publication. Edison 16:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The DIRECT proposal was published first on the www.directlauncher.com website and following this an article was published on the www.nasaspaceflight.com website. The latter website is a recognised source of information on developments in space technology and regularly reports on developments at NASA and elsewhere, and has been cited as a source in NY times. The Wikipedia entry post-dates these and is not a 'means of first publication'. Further, the entry is not a vanity article as its original creator is not in any way whatsoever connected with the proposal. The proposal's author has since corrected technical details on the entry Batoom 11:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for a Decision. There won't be any further announcements or links for at least another month or two. Things are happening behind the scenes, but this is BIG - as in political, federal budget and Pentagon level, not just NASA. I've done pretty-much all the re-writing I can offer in my free time at this point. I would thus like to request a final ruling one way or the other please. The deletion notice at the top sure doesn't add any assistance to our efforts. If the article doesn't comply, I'd rather it just dissappear than remain in its current state any longer. There isn't any point in adding a link from directlauncher.com to the wiki article while it remains. Ross B Tierney 20:49, 10 November 2006 (EDT)

I think that AfDs stay open for five days, so it ought to be closed tomorrow. I just have to say that the purpose of the article is not to "add assistance to your efforts," it's to offer a balanced appraisal of the proposal, its merits, flaws, and perhaps most importantly the impact that it's made. I will await with interest these future announcements. MLilburne 09:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I understand that, however this is a very delicate time for this proposal and public appearance is going to be a critical part of it's perception. Any public content which affects the "image" becomes of serious concern for us. The deletion notice at the top of such a popular site as wikipedia makes the proposal "appear" dubious - which it is not. On such a publicly respected site as wikipedia, this is a VERY BAD THING, and a serious issue for us. So I'm trying to work with you to it resolved ASAP. Keep or Delete; we don't mind. Just as long as it gets out of this bad-PR "limbo" state soon - please. Ross B Tierney 14:40, 12 November 2006 (EDT)

• Keep and continue rewriting. This article represents a vigorous debate currently taking place within the inner circles at NASA and it's Field Centers, over the direction the American Manned Spaceflight program will take over the next few years. So long as readers understand that the final outcome of this debate is in a state of flux, it will serve to inform and educate. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and should not be used as one. However, this debate, currently underway, could have profound implications for the United States, and is unlikely to be carried in the major newspapers until such time as NASA actually makes a decision. As such, a properly worded article in Wikipedia serves the interest of educating and informing those wishing to know, and having otherwise limited resources to explore. clongton 19:44, 11 November 2006

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.