- 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. –Pomte 02:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Porkchop plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Created 2-1/2 years ago, this stub has received only administrative edits since that time. It also comes up at the top of a google search, which says to me that there's almost nothing else written about it of any consequence. Essentially a dictdef of a techno-jargon term with very limited scope. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It could potentially be notable as more information comes out. However, as the current information stands, all that "porkchop plots" merit is a mention in trajectories or orbit.-Thatotherguy21 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strewth! It's notable now, as reading beyond the top of that Google Web search, and seeing all of the people documenting pork chop plots, creating MATLAB scripts for them, and lecturing about them in universities would have revealed. You can find pork chop plots discussed in books about interplanetary mission planning, such as ISBN 0792371488, and its clear from reading just the NASA article linked-to by the article alone that there's more to say about pork chop plots and the mathematics behind them, into which this stub can clearly be expanded or refactored over time. And there is no deadline for doing so. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, we don't delete stubs just because they haven't been expanded yet, whether that period be 2.5 years or otherwise. Wikipedia is not finished. After all, we don't even have an an article on Lambert's theorem, which is the basis for these plots, yet. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Those Google hits look promising.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep With additional details, sources and an image, the Wikipedia:Notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Upgrading vote to reflect additional details and context added by User:Dhartung. As it currently stands, the article explains what the term means and real-world applications and relevance for its use. Alansohn (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I've added a bit more. The plot seems to me of minor notability but high visual interest and a hook into orbital mechanics for laymen, so it's worth keeping even if it isn't central itself. --Dhartung | Talk 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Recent edits make the article much more worthwhile than it was for the 2.5 years. (The sentiments about "Wikipedia is not finished" might also apply, but it is a moot point now). Kingdon (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Even though it sounds like a neologism, the term seems to be well-established in the space exploration community. If someone wrote an article on Lambert's theorem, I'd support merging this one into it, but the material needs to be kept. Cosmo0 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not sure why this article was even nominated; the NASA reference alone, as Uncle G stated, pretty much establishes notability. References check out, a Google search reveals several significant, reliable hits - stubbify and keep. Tanthalas39 (talk) 02:53, 3 January 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.