This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Spaceflight. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Spaceflight|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Spaceflight. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Spaceflight/archive

Alia Al Mansoori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't think this person is notable enough. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to prove its notability.-- فيصل (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Spaceflight. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added sources and info. There is coverage from 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2021. She is young, but she meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The references in the article support notability via WP:GNG. Nnev66 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High Above (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable. Article is a summary of a book about SES (company) which was written by(/for) SES. I cannot find sources to show that this book is notable, and I do not see that it meets any of the other criteria in WP:NBOOK. The only coverage I have found besides that from SES itself is in the form of two reviews (both already referenced in the article). One is a very short review from a personal blog [1], and the other is a TechRadar article [2] which appeared in the Wotsat column, to which the authors of the book were contributors ("Written by industry-leading journalists and Wotsat contributors [...]"). Pink Bee (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. Pink Bee (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Television, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as failing NBOOK. Couldn't find any other potential sources. Even Higher and Beyond Frontiers should probably go too. Astaire (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Astaire above, I am also nominating the following articles for deletion. I have WP:BEFOREd these and am unable to find sources to determine notability:

Even Higher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Beyond Frontiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pink Bee (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I can't find anything either - I'm debating between a redirect to the Astra page or a delete. SES and its Astra satellites seem to be pretty well known enough that Springer decided to hire people to write about them, however they're not so well known that I would anticipate someone really seeking this book out on Wikipedia. In other words, redirects are cheap, but if it's not something people would plausibly search for, then there's no point in having it. I'm leaning towards a delete for these. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure how many people would be searching for the books, but of the three I think Beyond Frontiers is more worthy of a redirect than the others because it appears to (have) be(en) an SES motto (at one point): Press release Design company portfolio SES video. They own a trademark for it. I don't really think anyone would be searching for that either, but it did come up more than any of the three books when I was looking for sources. Pink Bee (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After a cursory search of coverage, it is pretty clear this book is extremely niche and has very, very little secondary coverage. There is one source that gives the book a mention [3] but that is essentially it. Any reviews of the book might help in establishing notability but otherwise essentially all of the article's sources are primary or local, which don't factor into its notability. It lacks the widespread and significant secondary coverage required for notability.  GuardianH  00:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]