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. consensus that the article is now at a reasonable quality Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NASA research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested WP:PROD, so we'll have to do this the long way. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#NASA research article for the full discussion; this is an unsalvageably incoherent personal essay. It doesn't provide any kind of overview but just lists a few apparently randomly chosen anecdotes (Apollo 17 gets included but not Apollos 1–16, for instance, and there's not even a mention of most of NASA's core research areas like rocketry, computing and closed-environment life support); it's written in pure gibberish; and most importantly there's not a single thing mentioned here that isn't covered properly at the existing article on that topic. There's a legitimate argument that NASA research is a viable topic, but there's literally nothing salvageable on this page—even if it were rewritten into English rather than what I assume is a machine translation, it would still need to be completely rewritten from scratch since at present it gives hugely undue weight to the randomly-chosen examples.  ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Remagoxer (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. (Except the nominator wouldn't know pure gibberish if they blarfihned echxed ienks. Accept no substitutes for the real thing.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wow. I came here wondering what someone could be thinking to delete an article by that name, found myself re-educated. Nothing to salvage. It's better, but still a fairly random collection of fields, nothing to indicate it's comprehensive (even in the present, let alone historically). I can think of a few fields it doesn't seem to include. If we keep it, we need to make the collection listed somehow systematic. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 2001:1970:564B:4700:C434:D3E7:4D55:4838 (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to this version. This article has received a number of edits from an editor who, based on his user page, is likely a non-native speaker of English and was working on the article for an academic course project. The article was arguably of higher quality before that editor began contributing, and I assume his course is over since since he hasn't edited the article for the last few months. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article was a complete and utter disaster. I've reverted to the last coherent version, which is still kind of a "meh" article, but at least now it is written competently in the English language and attempts to give an overview of NASA research. Previous !voters might want to look at it again and revise their conclusions accordingly. jp×g 03:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Thanks to those who identified that the article had been inadvertently messed up by a bad rewrite: see here and here, and unless it all took place elsewhere, I think this student was done a disservice by not receiving feedback on his writing. I believe it is a viable overview topic and thus that the existing article should be rewritten to provide better coverage (with, of course, a lot of links to our articles on particular research programs) now that the urgent problem of its being so badly written has been fixed. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above and the improvements since the nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems like a good idea for an article, and if it is expanded, will keep content off the main NASA page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments. The subject of the article is definitely notable. It just needs a lot of work and editors willing to do that work. Laval (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per the fixes made and the topic's obvious notability. Footlessmouse (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2020 (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.