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 merge to SpaceX. already merge some content but feel free to trim it - actually it might have be trimmed JForget 00:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This article (and its sister article Falcon XX) were added to Wikipedia in the immediate aftermath of a space propulsion conference last month (August) where a SpaceX employee gave a powerpoint presentation with various conceptual ideas for future heavy-launch system configurations, based on a conceptual new engine. Internet buzz and formal media, including the mainstream space media, picked up the story and ran with it. Per the Talk page, the CEO of SpaceX quickly emphasized that "the SpaceX heavy lift slides shown at the recent propulsion conference are just rough concepts and not part of any grand long term plan." Even Aviation Week published a story with the claims corrected: Musk Clarifies SpaceX Position on Exploration showing that Musk and SpaceX currently have no formal plans for either a Falcon X or Falcon XX, and that both rockets are mere concepts.

I don't believe Wikipedia should have an article on what is now a purely speculative future heavy-lift rocket. Perhaps a section within the SpaceX main article is more appropriate. N2e (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to SpaceX ; this has gotten press, so is a valid search term for the company, and so should have a section in the company article. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As nominator, while I believe a Delete would be an acceptable outcome, for the reasons articulated above, I would have no problem supporting a Merge of the well-sourced portion of the info in this article into the SpaceX article. N2e (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Space X (Falcon XX was decided to be merged already) into some section of "design concepts" or similar (to be distinguished from actual projects under development) Alinor (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to SpaceX just as I said (and was the eventual outcome) for Falcon XX. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2010 (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.