Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 in spaceflight

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2013 in spaceflight

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

A page guessing about future events is not helpful. What if I started an article on Album releases by the Beastie Boys 2014? Rasputin72 (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, 2013 in spaceflight is sure to happen, unlike a Beastie Boys album in 2014. Unless 2012 happens. –Howard the Duck 04:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against re-creation next year. The general practice of the Timeline of spaceflight wikiproject which takes care of these type of pages is to only have the upcoming two years, eg 2011 and 2012 at present due to the availability of sources, and the fact that the number of confirmed launches is not enough to warrant being listed. Right now there is only two missions listed here and the formatting is not only incorrect, the sourcing is not definite as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be speculative WP:Crystal. Also it appears that someone messed up the page so as to be intelligible. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete, whilst this is too far ahead to be useful, a previous AFD on a similar article found that lists of future spaceflights in general are acceptable. WP:TLS generally keeps articles for a maximum of two years ahead of the current one, which takes us up to 2012. Therefore I would support deletion on the condition that it may be recreated on or after 1 January 2011 without the need for a formal deletion review (the current content of this article is likely to be completely out of date by then, and the format is not consistent with other articles in this series, so starting from scratch would be easier than restoring the deleted content. --G W… 09:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source better. Space projects have up to a decade of planning and building, and can have a decade of flight time to reach the target. The article needs to be sourced better, and reverted to an earlier version. I think the one mission can be handled by inclusion on the 2013 page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, there is no earlier version with the proper formatting per WP:TLS. This is all there is, a brand new article. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, also space missions aren't too well-known for sticking with their schedules. Them From Space 04:07, 9 January 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.