Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Service module Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Service_module

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. – Joe (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Service module (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is original research from 2004. The topic is notable but duplicates quality articles including Apollo Command/Service Module, Orion Service Module, Zvezda (ISS module), all well supported, and Soyuz. This article adds nothing to the encyclopedia. Fails WP:V. A PROD was reverted without improvement. Rhadow (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If the topic is notable but we only have articles on specific instances, surely a general article is warranted? The list of service modules alone is enough reason to keep the article, the rest of the text can be improved. For example, Section 2.4.2 of this book discusses the general concept over several pages in relation to satellites, and our article could be expanded to include this. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it does seem to me that navigation is improved a little by an article/list like this and/or Category:Service modules. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - I feel like it could be a valid notable page, and I'll personally commit to trying to improve it. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Apollo Command/Service Module per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usage as a primary topic must be "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined." I don't see how that can be said about Apollo Command/Service Module when we have e.g. Orion Service Module and Zvezda (ISS module).--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useage of "Service module" in sources for space topics will overwhelmingly refer to Apollo. Orion's SM isn't nearly as widely known, just because it's more current than the Apollo one, and Zvezda is...Zvezda, not "Zvezda service module". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Apollo Command/Service Module per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; this article largely contains WP:OR, and much of the listed examples are either fictitious or cancelled programs. The service module is associated with the Service Module component of the CSM in the Apollo program, and this page should redirect to its page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pontificalibus and Shelbystripes. Doesn't make sense to redirect to Apollo Command/Service Module because the point of the article is to describe the general concept, and the Apollo SM is just one example. Balon Greyjoy's claim that "much of the listed examples are either fictitious or cancelled programs" is highly misleading. There are some fictional examples listed at the end; I'm not aware of any examples being fictitious in the sense of being fake. Bushranger says that Zvezda is...Zvezda, not "Zvezda Service Module" and yet the lead of wikipedia's article on Zvezda says also known as the Zvezda Service Module. Rhadow includes completely irrelevant/spurious claims in the nomination (eg, "a PROD was reverted without improvement" — reverting a PROD does not carry any requirement that the article be improved). – Gpc62 (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello Gpc62 -- There's no obligation to improve; I know that. I probably should have said "without comment". I gave my logic for deletion. I would like to hear why the dePRODder believes a ten year old bit of original research should stay in the encyclopedia, that's all. Rhadow (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just like rocket nozzle or airlock, this is a component of space hardware that is conceptually shared across multiple vehicles, with a separate design history for each nation, generation and vehicle. There is plenty of scope for an overview and comparison, there is no shortage of sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2017 (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.