Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starship flight test 9

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2025 March 4.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 redirect‎ to List of Starship launches#Future launches. Restoring previous redirect as WP:ATD. asilvering (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starship flight test 9

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

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

Article is WP:TOOSOON. Article is full of WP:CRYSTAL and speculation, and doesn't pass WP:GNG. The spacecrafts that are purportedly flying this test are still being built and no details are known. RachelTensions (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If both vehicles needing to be assembled is a requirement, then there goes Artemis II, Artemis III, Artemis IV, and so on.

That is obviously absurd. And there are signifcant details known about the flight.

(Also, really? Ctrl-c Ctrl-v complaints for F8 and F9?) Redacted II (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that the articles for Artemis II, Artemis III, and Artemis IV have vastly more information contained within in them than this article, which is written based on pure speculation that is sourced to a few tweets and YouTube videos. RachelTensions (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NASASpaceflight is a WP:RS.

And yes, Artemis II III and so on are more fleshed out. But saying that the vehicles haven't been built means deletion is needed is, honestly, absurd. Redacted II (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify: the fact that the vehicles haven't been built is not a reason to delete the article, however it is likely one of the reasons we don't have enough information or coverage for an article yet.. The reason to delete the article is that we have no real details outside what is largely speculation, and we have no idea when those details will be coming (especially after today's event.)

Two relevant excerpts from the WP:SPECULATION policy are:
If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.
and
As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient.

In this case, the event is not well documented, and the coverage of the events in reliable sources is insufficient outside of one (debatably) reliable source. There simply isn't enough information to form a useful article here yet. RachelTensions (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preparation is in progress.

NASASpaceflight is (again) reliable. I don't see how that's even close to being debatable.

There is sufficient information to form a useful article. Even in its current form (and it will be expanded significantly in the next several month), it states:

S35/B16 will fly on Flight 9.

S35 and B16 will attempt a catch.

S35 will likely enter Low Earth Orbit.

B16 is Block 1, S35 is Block 2 (replicated elsewhere) Redacted II (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if SpaceX decides to reuse B12, B14, or B15 (if B15 is caught)? What if the already built Ships need to be retrofitted due to the Flight 7 issues and SpaceX instead finds it better to skip to a later ship for flight 8 and fly S34 on flight 9? Also, the Ship catch attempt will only happen if the flight 8 results justify that.

You can state what SpaceX apparently intends to do. But even SpaceX does not know for sure the details for Flight 9. This data belongs in a table in List of Starship launches. It is not yet time for this article to exist. 158.184.209.107 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. I've deleted this article twice on the basis of WP:TOOSOON and that WP is not a crystal ball. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 22:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the basis of WP:TOOSOON and WP is not an indiscriminate collector of information. I am a Starship fan, but the amount of reliable information on this flight is minimal and better placed in List of Starship launches. As Starship test flight 8 approaches, more information on this flight will become available and then it will become reasonable to recreate this article. In the meantime, this article is an unneeded placeholder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.184.209.107 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This test flight is going to happen with really high confidence. Thus there will be a article. Someone is willing/able to do the work now and things are known. Let them. Best place to create a arcticle is the article. --Usp (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to create an article for an event that does not yet have enough independent significant coverage or information is in a WP:DRAFT. Just because the event will happen eventually doesn't mean there has to be an article now, especially when we don't have significant coverage from anything more than maybe one reliable source. RachelTensions (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there will be an article. Just not now. There isn't any significant media coverage, failing WP:GNG. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 22:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except... there is. Redacted II (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying this without proving any evidence to back it up.

Here's what the article shows:

5/7 of the citations in the article are tweets or YouTube videos
3/7 of the citations in the article are from the same publication (2 tweets and one YouTube video from Nasaspaceflight)
2/7 of the citations in the article are from a SpaceX employee (ie. not independent)

If you'd like to reinforce that this event meets WP:GNG, please provide evidence of significant coverage of the event in multiple reliable, independent sources so that we can do a source analysis and see if there is indeed enough coverage on the event for an article. RachelTensions (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1]: "If Starship flight test 8 goes well, it is conceivable that flight test 9 or 10 might be orbital - and test deploy some actual Starlink V3 satellites."

Article is mainly discussing Starlink, mentions Flight 9 as first potential flight for deploying starlinks.

Previously mentioned NSF posts

Thats already two. There isn't a set # of sources required (multiple, which has been met, is only expected, not required).

Additionaly, sources are only preferably independant: primary sources, so long as they are not the main source of the article, is acceptable. Redacted II (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1]: "If Starship flight test 8 goes well, it is conceivable that flight test 9 or 10 might be orbital - and test deploy some actual Starlink V3 satellites."
Article is mainly discussing Starlink, mentions Flight 9 as first potential flight for deploying starlinks.

This is one sentence in the entire article, and the sentence is literally an Elon tweet, not something that the author of the article even wrote. Hardly constitutes significant coverage.

Additionaly, sources are only preferably independant: primary sources, so long as they are not the main source of the article, is acceptable.

No. One of the core principles of WP:GNG is that, for the purposes of establishing notability, sources must be independent from the subject. RachelTensions (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the tweet # (I don't have Twitter, otherwise I'd check myself)

The third set of sources are not adding to notability, but do provide information. Redacted II (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Starship launches lack of verifiable information means that we don't have enough to justify a separate article yet. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of verifiable information:

B16/S35 will fly on this test. B16 is Block 1, S35 Block 2.

S35 will likely enter LEO

S35 may attempt a catch, though the failure of Flight 7 could change this.

S35 may deploy Starlink V3 satellites (not dummy sats: actual, functional satellites)

Moving this to List of Starship launches does not improve the encyclopedia. Redacted II (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I count three facts and three pieces of informed speculation/intent, all of which could easily fit in the table at List of Starship launches. Nothing is lost by redirecting until more details are confirmed/covered in reliable sources beyond SpaceX tweets. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2025 (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.