Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamics Explorer

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. Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamics Explorer

[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)

because I created Dynamics Explorer 1 and Dynamics Explorer 2 articles CRS-20 (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CRS-20 wishes to split Dynamics Explorer into Dynamics Explorer 1 and Dynamics Explorer 2 Leijurv (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's already done. CRS-20 (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge the extremely useful new material written by CRS-20 (talk · contribs) into this, the combined article on the two satellites (subsequently deleting the separated articles). Since DE1 and DE2 were part of a single mission, two sides of the same story, it makes more sense to have the entire story in one place. Otherwise there must be repeated text in both new articles (as there is: the new leads are nearly identical) and it is almost certain that anyone who reads one, will read the other. I'm sorry, @CRS-20, that this involves extra work! Elemimele (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rather than merging data from the satellite pages here, pare this page back to talk about the overall mission, and keep the detailed information about the individual satellites in their own pages. The instrumentation and results between the two satellites was sufficiently different that they do warrant separate coverage. PianoDan (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that would work too. Elemimele (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2021 (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.