Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starship flight test 8

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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starship flight test 8

[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. This could easily be covered in List of Starship launches#Future launches until such a time that there is sigcov for this test and enough information to construct an article. RachelTensions (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. This will be the next flight of Starship, and many details are known. The ship is ready for cryo testing, too. Canadien1867 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)— Canadien1867 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

agreed CasonPlayzYT (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There will be certainly a Flight 8, perhaps delayed since what happened to IFT-7, so I vote to keep the page and update it with details as we receive them. Besides, I usually monitor the Portuguese Wikipédia Starship pages, which is interlinked with the English one. It would be a bummer to have details in other languages but not in English. ThiagoSousaSilveira (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

we will see more information about flight 8 in the coming days, now that flight 7 is over and both b15 and s34 are well into testing Canadien1867 (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Launch is quite notable, has no WP:Crystal violations, and is far from WP:TOOSOON Redacted II (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, where is the significant coverage in reliable sources? All sources but one are either a direct link to an Elon tweet, or what is essentially a fansite with no editorial oversight or factchecking policies to be found. RachelTensions (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s the next flight. If the article is deleted it’ll just need to be recreated again shortly after since flight 8 will happen within weeks 73.210.30.217 (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted it’ll just need to be recreated again shortly after That's great, I never said the event would never be notable or have significant coverage... just not yet.

flight 8 will happen within weeks Seems like WP:SPECULATION on your part. RachelTensions (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

flight 8 will absolutely not happen in weeks, considering the result of flight 7.

it will likely trigger a mishap investigation by the FAA, turning weeks into months

Earliest official estimates are roughly early-mid March, which isn't exactly "within weeks" Canadien1867 (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

source that it triggered an investigation by the FAA? StateoftheUnionStrong (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the "fansite with no editorial oversight or fact-checking policies to be found" you are referring to is NASASpaceFlight.com, the website is actually considered a reliable source according to Talk:SpaceX Starship/FAQ Max1298 (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out here (and in the F9 deletion thread), NASASpaceflight is reliable, and calling them a "fansite with no editorial oversight" is practically defamatory. Redacted II (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of reliable sources, including NASASpaceflight which is considered reliable. Definitely not TOOSOON given the sources we have. User3749 (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the "plenty" of reliable sources providing WP:SIGCOV of this event? Even if we consider NASASpaceflight reliable, that's the only independent reliable source the article currently contains, and likely the only reliable source providing any sigcov to this event at this point.
That's only one reliable source providing any significant coverage. RachelTensions (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See below, as there’s also Ars Technica. It’s not just one reliable source providing SIGCOV. User3749 (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, current sourcing is insufficient and what will happen is rather unsure at the moment. Claiming that a source is reliable based on an obscure essay/FAQ page is not really convincing. But in any case the mentions on Nasaspaceflightcom are insufficient to establish notability as of now. Fram (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anythink else is waste of work and creates confusion. --Usp (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with other comments above. A quick Google search turned up mentions of flight 8 in an article from Ars Technica too, so I don't think lack of reliable sources is a major concern. SECProto (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there WP:SIGCOV in an Ars Technica article? The article I see is just a very small passing mention of the next flight: "If SpaceX can fly Starship again as soon as next month, it's possible the company could preserve its aims for the program this year." RachelTensions (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also lists a number of objectives intended for flight 7 that "All those objectives will now have to wait until Flight 8". Then it lists a number of things that had been intended to test in flight 8 "that will likely have to wait until a later mission". This seems to clearly meet the significant coverage criteria: "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". SECProto (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonable to assume the test is going to occur. So this article should exist. The depth and content of the article of course will be low initially but as long as sources are cited I think it would be valuable.

Wikipedia is usually my first source for figuring out when the next Starship launch is happening etc... So when I see an article like this is relatively blank that gives me confidence not to go digging for news articles etc. about it. Frogeyedpeas (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles shouldn't exist for events that are "reasonable to assume" are going to occur but currently have insignificant coverage in reliable sources. (WP:NEVENT, WP:GNG) The information of this article could easily be folded into List of Starship launches and this page be redirected there, serving no disadvantage to the reader. RachelTensions (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder: watch out for WP:Bludgeon. Redacted II (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Similar to User:Frogeydpeas, I stumbled across this article because I was very interested in Starship's next action, and the fact that this article is relatively undetailed informs me that Flight 8 is not quite ready to go. Pygos (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current resources are reliable enough, and what speculation is there comes from the sources. There is no good reason to doubt that there will be a Starship Flight Test 8 in the not too distant future, although I think the Elon Musk is being optimistic in stating that it will not slip beyond next month. Delete this now, and it will need to be recreated within a month. Overall, I think that an article for the next/upcoming Starship flight is totally appropriate to have. 158.184.209.107 (talk) 20:17, 22 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.