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 no consensus. (X! · talk)  · @187  ·  03:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orion 17[edit]

Orion 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This page is a clear violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The policy notes that 'scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place', and uses as an example that 'the 2020 U.S. presidential election ... is not considered appropriate article topic. Clearly if something as inevitable as the 2020 election isn't notable; something as unlikely as a 2020 moonshot by an as-of-yet unbuilt rocket in an as-of-yet unfunded program is not notable. I see no reason that List of Constellation missions shouldn't suffice for this page (and likely any other launch after Orion 2). Prod removed with comment 'Please make an Afd if you want to delete. Let the various standpoints be presented'. Nfitz (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is way too far into the future with too many unknowns and variables for it to not be WP:CRYSTAL. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE. This is 10 years away! Far too early to be starting a wikipedia page. magnius (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepsies ;) It's not fictional, just tentative, and even if plans change, it was still planned. Needs rescuing, me thinks. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 04:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't see WP:CRYSTAL grounds here. Artw (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The analogy to the 2020 presidential election is flawed. We don't know who will be running for president please, don't let it be Sarah Palin, but we do know details about Orion. Undecided. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so. We do know there is going probably going to be a 2020 election. We have no idea if there actually will ever be an Orion 17 moon mission - the whole thing seems highly unlikey with the current US President having campaigned to cut back the program. I can't think of a better WP:CRYSTAL example to me. Nfitz (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, I can't see any references that actually support this ... the page doesn't provide any references; NASA's website doesn't mention this; the best I've found is an old planning document, that also notes that Space Shuttle Atlantis was retired in 2008, even though it's scheduled to fly through STS-132 in 2010. So not only is this WP:CRYSTAL I can't even find evidence that it meets WP:V. Nfitz (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm ... just where are the details coming from? It needs references badly. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL - clearly not "almost certain to take place". ukexpat (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Constellation missions until more substantial information is available. (And perhaps retitle that article to "List of planned Constellation missions" or something else). Kusma (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of Constellation missions (which should be re-titled "List of planned Constellation missions", per Kusma). The alleged planned of Orion 17 is 2019, and too much could happen in the meantime, including scrapping of the project due to budget cuts or a disaster. Somewhere in the middle, perhaps around 2014, there's a grey area, but 2019 is WP:CRYSTAL territory. In addition, according to Orion 17 "A landing site has not yet been chosen, but it is likely to be at either the lunar north or south pole, where NASA has decided to build a Lunar outpost" - and if the polar Lunar outpost is scrapped then Orion 17 would probably be scrapped too. --Philcha (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It seems like almost all of the planned constellation missions have their own page--why did you single out Orion 17 for deletion? It would be strange to have all of those other pages but none for Orion 17. 174.153.175.72 (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was tempted to do most of them, however the AfD guidelines note that "for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group.", so I randomly chose one. Nfitz (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human spaceflight about figuring out a plan for the whole set. Shimgray | talk | 16:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or redirect for now. I think a reasonable test is whether there are significant resources assigned to a particular planned mission (with reliable sources that can be cited) -- say crew member are assigned and in training or significant special hardware is being built that's unique for the particular mission ("Orion 36 will be the first mission to use the $100 million solar powered rover being built by Zorch Co."). Once that happens, there may be a notable current activity that can justify an article, regardless of whether the activity ultimately comes to fruition.--agr (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to List of (planned) Constellation missions per Kusma/Philcha. Recreate if and when it becomes less WP:CRYSTALly, i.e. if and when there's some concrete sourceable content for this particular mission. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can see that redirect may be appropiate. I don't see any material to merge; it's all the generic mission plan of a typical moon mission. Though I'm still not sure even a redirect meets WP:V. Nfitz (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect seems most appropriate; the odds of this projection being accurate a decade in advance, or of having the confidence even to say for certain there will be an "Orion 17", seems pretty low. We should also figure out what to do with all the other "Orion xx" missions. Shimgray | talk | 15:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Having done a bit of research, the usefulness of this page is best shown by the fact that "Orion 17", in the most recent projection, is going to be a flight to the space station in 2020, not a flight to the moon in 2019. Yes, we could salvage this article... but if it's been that unloved and unnoticed since February, when the projection was released, who's to say it won't have the same problem again? Far better to redirect to one page, which might be vaguely maintainable; we can always split it out again once there's something firmly known, once a crew's been named or some metal's been bent. Shimgray | talk | 16:45, 20 July 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.