Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STS-135

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. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. Discussion regarding merge/redirect should take place on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STS-135[edit]

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

Probable violation of WP:CRYSTAL, paraphrasing and other sourcing issues. Colds7ream (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into STS-3xx, since it describes a contingency version of STS-335. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to STS-3xx. Right now mostly unsourced speculation and original research by Tennisuser123 . Hektor (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Keep - Admittedly this is tough. STS-135 does exist. It is not a flown mission, nor a planned mission; it is however a planning construct -- an alternative being given consideration. Because the Space Shuttle program operates so much in the public view, there are multiple sources which, taken cumulatively, adequately attest to the existence of STS-135 in that sense. The article needs to make all that clear in its lede, and above all avoid WP:CRYSTAL claims! (sdsds - talk) 05:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Opposing my own proposal! :-D) The article has been expanded greatly since I put up this AfD, and, so long as content selection is careful, this will probably be a keeper. Colds7ream (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable possible mission. Clearly there are sources to support this. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I keep my initial position. Redirect - despite rewriting, no source whatsoever is provided in the article (and for good reasons, there has been no information from NASA about such a mission) so no proof that this is not speculation from the authors or original research. Hektor (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2009 (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.