Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEPR 841

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SEPR 841[edit]

SEPR 841 (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)

After their undiscussed page move was redirected, this is a hostile WP:CFORK for some unconstructive reason from the original and broader article now at Société d'Etudes pour la Propulsion par Réaction.

This article doesn't stand up as a separate topic. It was a minor engine used only briefly - the 84-4 had the longer service history. Individual engine articles for SEPR make no sense out of the overall context of their range of engines (as the article first covered). Even the name is dubious - there's some evidence that it should be 84-1, not 841 (in which the 84-4 makes much more sense). There was, of course, no attempt at discussion in any of these moves and splits. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are other individual engine articles and the article can and does cover the entire SEPR 84 family. Apart from that the nominator was the one doing the splitting and messing about as far as I can tell. The original article was patenetly about the SEPR 841 and the nominator re-named it as SEPR without changing the content so the title was completely out of sync with the content. As for only having a generic article, I agree to a certain extent, say articles on less notable SEPR solid-fuelled rockets and SEPR liquid-fuelled rockets. Whatever happens i feel the nominator should relax a bit and see what emerges, before slinging AfDs around like confetti.--Petebutt (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - meets standards for inclusion. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability established by [1][2][3][4][5][6] ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2015 (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.