Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASA research (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 14:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NASA research

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/NASA research
• Articles for deletion/NASA research (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

NASA research (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)

Improper WP:CFORK from NASA#Research. That section is actually better than this one which is woefully under-developed and of unclear provenance. The appropriate way to do these sorts of spinout articles is when the main article becomes too large and then material is better handled as its own separate article. This did not happen here. jps (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read the Keep comments and result from the December, 2020 RM, which seem applicable here. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no mention of the fact that there is a better accounting of NASA research at the page from which it is ostensibly spun out. Do you see anything in this article that is better explained here than there? jps (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Randy Kryn; nothing has changed that would suggest the previous consensus to keep needs to be revisited. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 17:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The previous argument apparently was over a different version that was even worse than this one. It seems that the people discussing the article did not look at the main NASA page to see if there might be an alternative here. It seems pretty obvious to me that this article is not as good as that section. jps (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Astronomy, Technology, and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More specific / narrow topic and more extensive. Moreover, the respective main article is already "too large" to contain all of this info there. The article does indeed seem a bit under-developed though but I haven't checked that thoroughly and it doesn't seem severe. The more extensive article should be linked with {{Main|...}} like it's been done in countless other articles. However, besides the potential issue of content missing there, it, unlike the main article, doesn't include info about active NASA research programs, maybe the info about them should be moved from the main article to this article and then get summarized or transcluded in the main article. --Prototyperspective (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per prior discussion. Deletion is not cleanup PianoDan (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2022 (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.