Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lunar 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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar module

[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)

LK (spacecraft) is never referred to as a lunar module, thus this should be redirected back to lunar module Sam-2727 (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment. The nomination is unclear. Are you proposing redirecting Lunar module to its only operational example to date, the Apollo Lunar Module? "Lunar Module" was that craft's most commonly used name during the Apollo era. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am confused too. LM was called a Lunar module, while the proposed LK Russian was called a Lunar Lander, but that nom is just being pedantic, as they are one in the same? With a new lander/module on the way should this page just be renamed as List of.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - no compelling argument for deletion. There does seem to be a fair bit of overlap between Lander (spacecraft), Lunar module, Lunar lander, and List of crewed lunar lander designs, and as such I don't know if the difference between Lunar module and Lunar lander is really enough to suggest separate articles. Chris857 (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article may require a tidy up to ensure that there isn't excessive overlap with other articles but there is no compelling reason for deletion. I think we can all agreed that an article on types of transport which will land people on the moon is notable and there are likely to be multiple variations on such transports which warrants a separate article to the only successful module to date.Tracland (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is needed as is to present both sides of the 1960s space race in one article, and with another vehicle of this type coming up there will be a greater need. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1. I suggest merging lunar lander to this article, as lunar lander is a type of lunar module. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Apollo Lunar Module which is the one nearly everyone really means when they just say "lunar module". The unfinished Russian craft had an equivalent purpose and followed similar design principles (one guesses out of not reinventing the wheel) but really this whole discussion of lunar landers in general is really a piece of lunar orbit rendezvous amplified with speculation about how future lunar missions might choose to address similar issues. At any rate, we don't need a disambig page; at most we need a hatnote on the LM article. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Vehicles landing astronauts or cosmonauts on the moon is very notable and historical. Just need to be sure it's in the right place so that readers can find the full history quickly and easily! ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mangoe. The Russian vehicle isn't named lunar module, nor are any of the vehicles in later American programs, so no merger. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Article needs some more work and information, but is encyclopedic. Alex-h (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2020 (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.