 | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 September 2022. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
| This page was proposed for deletion by Piotrus (talk · contribs) on 28 June 2022. |
Fair use rationale for Image:2001lunarbay.jpg edit
Image:2001lunarbay.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Contested deletion edit
Are we sure that the content and context is the same as before? The previous discussion (from 2006) implies that it was related to the Orbiter (simulator) article. I find it hard to believe that an article from 2006 is still "substantially identical" to the one in situ now - 2022.
Additionally, the request for more references was only added on 28/06, and the request for deletion made on 30/06 - that's not much time to react and fulfil the request to bring it up to notability standards. --Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Chaheel Riens Possible, but the article is in very poor shape, failing WP:V, WP:GNG, WP:IPC... we could send it to AfD but wouldn't it just waste people's time? An alternative might be just to SOFTDELETE this by redirecting it now, preserving history. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't consider it a waste of my time to be given more than two days notice to try and improve the article. As you can see from the article history, my edits have already done exactly that - adding the only current reference to the text so far Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Additional - I'll mention that at the end of a given period - a month say - I'll not contest it if it still fails to meet criteria, but I think there is potential in the meantime. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Chaheel Riens Rescuing is obviously preferable. We can move this to your userspace, so you can work on it in your free time, and you can restore it whenever you feel it is ready, no time pressure. Alternatively, we can send it to WP:AFD for a wider community discussion. You can remove the speedy deletion suggestion anytime. Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Additional - I'll mention that at the end of a given period - a month say - I'll not contest it if it still fails to meet criteria, but I think there is potential in the meantime. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't consider it a waste of my time to be given more than two days notice to try and improve the article. As you can see from the article history, my edits have already done exactly that - adding the only current reference to the text so far Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)