- 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The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mars 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason is the same as the Mars 3 article (they are twin spacecraft): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mars_3 3er40 (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - Try this customized Google News search. Examples of coverage in reliable sources include: [1], [2], [3]. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing this feature out. However, I've briefly looked through the search results (and the sources you pointed out), and it doesn't provide enough coverage for the level of unsourced material in both articles. All that's in the news is mostly information repeated in many other newspapers, which is the same info already sourced in my sandbox. 3er40 (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - While there may be lots of unsourced content in the article, unsourced content is not a reason to delete; AfD is not for cleanup. Also interplanetary spacecraft are as close to "automatically notable" as anything. Also have you looked for Russian-language sources? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. There are sources already in the article, others exist both online and offline which can be added. Subject is clearly notable. I can't see any problem here; certainly not one of a level requiring deletion. --W. D. Graham 12:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems the consensus is clearly keep, and it's probably going to stay that way. I'd like to request for both the Mars 3 and Mars 2 discussions to be closed. I'll just try and work around these difficulties. 3er40 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One last note before this is closed: this wasn't a question of notability. I agree that this subject is very notable (thus why I wanted to continue coverage in the Mars_program article). This was a question of whether there is more than one reliable source that provides the level of coverage I'm looking for (which wasn't the case for English-language sources). Also, while this isn't for clean-up, this place (if I remember correctly) can be used if there aren't enough reliable sources in existence. However, I guess I can try to look up russian-language sources and see if I can find anything there. 3er40 (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think this article should be deleted anymore. See the mars 3 afd for why. 3er40 (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2012 (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.