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. Nomination withdrawn. This article would focus more on how SpaceX has popularized Mars colonization again. It will take a lot of effort to remove speculation from this article, but alas, it can be done. It is a notable topic. (non-admin closure)‎ CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article has deviated from its original purpose and is a good example of how Wikipedia's live documentation of history can go haywire sometimes. Originally, back in 2013, this is a place SpaceX Mars vehicle proposal named "Mars Colonial Transporter" ([1]). After that, there are multiple iterations of this concept which is best described at SpaceX Starship design history. Later on, around 2020 ([2]), this article list all SpaceX mars mission proposals and vehicles to go along with it. But by 2024, I've rewritten this article to try to emphasize about the relationship between SpaceX and Mars, because the launch vehicles have already being written about at SpaceX Starship and SpaceX Red Dragon, but I stopped doing so when I realized that this article will be filled with original research and press releases information. I think this article should be redirected or at the very least refactored in some way. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Astronomy, Spaceflight, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close per the nominator removing the lead sentence and then nominating the page, which may stretch good faith enough to end this deletion discussion of a notable topic and a very well-sourced and long-term article. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you are the one that is stretching people's good faith. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe both or neither of us is doing so, but the fact remains that you removed the lead summary sentence before nominating (even though you wrote the good summary sentence in good faith). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I need to go out and touch grass a bit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't bogart (per WP:IAR). Just trying to save a nice page with 58 sources that you helped improve Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I think I would agree to close this AFD too. Initially I think that this article will duplicate the scope of History of SpaceX and SpaceX Starship design history, but I think that this article could talk more about how SpaceX has popularized the ethos of colonizing Mars after decades of stagnation. I will try to find as many sources as possible before writing this article again to make sure it won't become another op-ed piece. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2024 (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.