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 move to writing in space. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing in Space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unsourced. Badly written. Improper title. I don't oppose the existence of an article on that topic, but it would need to be extensive sourced (possibly citing the space agencies themselves when useful), be written with a more chronological perspective (the current article looks too much like a list), and have a decent title (Writing in space — with a lowercase S — would be better, but that isn't perfect, either, and I couldn't think about a better title right now). It is not clear that the article as it currently exists is better than no article at all. A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! ! 10:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with the nom that an interesting and encyclopeic article might be written on writing utensils used in space, but this isn't even a good start. Speculation, original research, extremely few secondary sources (only on ballpoint pens, plus a service manual for the ISS printer I'd consider a primary source). Huon (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This reads like schoolwork and is mostly original research. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nonsense. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Potentially of interest but lacks sources. Would have to be rewritten from scratch. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete essay. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Covers an interesting topic and contains some solid information mixed in with speculation. It is definitely not nonsense, although it is poorly written and needs some work. It has more references to reliable sources than most articles on Wikipedia. If it was well written it would cover aspects of writing in space that can otherwise only go in Fisher Space Pen, which is an article about a specific product. However, the stuff about printers has to go, since it is not related to the topic. I'll see what I can do about improving it. Wronkiew (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep stubby but it has references and factual prose that can be improved on. Getting rid of the list format is better done using the "edit" link than the "delete" link. Pegasus «C¦T» 08:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Converted the list into more fluent prose. However, I haven't had the time to inline the references. This looks more like a keepable stub now. Pegasus «C¦T» 09:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Now that Pegasus made that changes, I vote keep provided that it's moved to a more reasonable title (e.g. Writing implements used in space missions) and de-ORPHANed. It still needs massive cleanup, but there is no deadline, and templates from WP:TC might be useful meanwhile. -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  14:39, 26 September 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.