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 redirect to Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISS toolbag[edit]

ISS toolbag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is about a subject that may not have achieved sufficient notability for its own page. There is already a section on the lost toolbag at Heidemarie_Stefanyshyn-Piper#Lost_tool_bag_during_spacewalk. The toolbag itself may not be notable. Even if it is, the toolbag may better be described as belonging to the space shuttle (STS) rather than to the ISS, and is probably packed specifically to the requirements of each mission. Richard Cavell (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the article section (feel free to be bold and do it now, doesn't seem like too controversial a move). --fvw* 09:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The lost toolbag has has received significant news coverage though admittedly that may be relatively short term and not prove to be notable over time. What I think may prove to be more notable over time is increased interest in astronomy in general as well as more specifically the issue of "space junk" in earth's orbit. Raitchison (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to article section as suggested by nominator. Incident already covered in detail in Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper, and toolbag not notable enough in itself for separate article. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless, you know, I lost my remote a couple hours ago. Coastalsteve984's TV Remote wouldn't make the cut, either. Not to imply that I'm as important as the ISS, but still. An article, or redirect is absurd in my opinion. I'm sure there's been more than one toolbag taken outside the ISS, to focus even a redirect on this one is silly, in my opinion. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep under these conditions:
  • Establish that this is a landmark case of "gear adrift" in space, specifically that it is the first documented occurrence of a loss of equipment during routine maneuver. Otherwise, redirect to existing section within HS-P if such is not the case. Personally, this is the first I've heard of an accidental occurrence that was not potentially catastrophic, yet with other interesting factors (reasons for equipment failure, reports of ground observation) that allow it to serve as example.
  • Portal to reports and video coverage (NASA log, ground observation).
  • Provide professional analysis of incident, calculations, rationale for non-retrieval, implications of item reentry.

"ISS toolbag", though possibly incorrect, appears to be the popular choice of name; this entry should definitely remain either as an entry per above, or as a redirect. — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 13:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A one time news event. If someone wishes, maybe we need an article that lists all items lost by astronauts while in orbit. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2008 (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.