Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austral Launch Vehicle

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Austral Launch Vehicle}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Austral Launch Vehicle}})

Alright -- this article does have some reliable sources, including TheConversation. The issues here are this: this is an orphaned article, and this vehicle is a concept without WP:SIGCOV. See: it doesn't exist in its final form/ yet. As it doesn't really exist yet, WP:TOOSOON, also seems a bit like it violates WP:NOTPROMO. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Science, Technology, Spaceflight, and Australia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as I said in the afd for Marie-Rose Tessier I can't take your argument seriously when you admit you think the sources are reliable in your original rationale also just because it is not complete doesnt mean it isn't ready for an article especially since as you have already admitted there are sources that cover it and how can it be promotional if the sources are reliable? Scooby453w (talk) {{small|WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 04:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)}}

::WP:RS is not the end all be all. Just because something has been covered in a reliable source once does not mean that it is Wikipedia worthy; we also have WP:SIGCOV, meaning that articles need to have significant coverage. That pairs with coverage in reliable sources; this article has one reference to TheConversation; no sigcov in reliable sources. Next, there is WP:SUSTAINED. The coverage needs to be continuing and sustained; the last coverage of this subject was about a decade ago, and there hasn't been anything of note since. Fails that. All in all, clear deletion, unless a Wikipedian can find more recent coverage in reliable sources.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Notability is not temporary jusf because it hasn't been in a source in a decade doesnt mean it should be deleted the 3 sources span multiple months its not like its something that shows up once on the morning news Scooby453w (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC) {{small|WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 04:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)}}

:::There is one reliable source from TEN years ago, in TheConversation. Not enough reliable, independent sources. Finally, it doesn't appear that this project has made any noises for almost ten years, and the final product likely doesn't exist. If you find any more sources, please let me know. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I propose that we could do a Merge with Australian Space Agency. The total content makes for about one paragraph or so, but it is still of note. Hal Nordmann (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Merge or Draftify: The sources on ALV I’ve come across, including Springer papers by researchers from the University of Queensland and Heliaq Advanced Engineering [https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-34024-1_15], [https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-34024-1_11], are reliable but not independent, so they don’t satisfy WP:GNG. That said, they confirm ALV’s role in Australia’s aerospace research history. Given this, a merge into Australian Space Agency a broader topic would preserve this material in a more appropriate context, per WP:PRESERVE, or it could be draftified for further development and sourcing. HerBauhaus (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC) Revised !vote HerBauhaus (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:

• Fails WP:GNG and falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL: {{tq|Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements}}. As {{u|AnonymousScholar49}} notes, this is a project that appears to have been on the backburner for about a decade, having received no independent SIGCOV in that entire period.

:I would be happy with a merge, but is Australian Space Agency really the best place? None of the sources I'm seeing even make mention of the ASA, and I don't see a neat place to fit information on this project into the article as it currently exists. Maybe reusable launch vehicle would be a better merge destination? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:

• Comment - I've added 4 refs from Google Scholar. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Keep Strong Keep - lots of refs using Google.com.au.^{[https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22austral+launch+vehicle%22&client=safari&sca_esv=a980cca8ef080035&ei=8nolaPn9FM-z5NoP19nH4Qk&start=20&sa=N&sstk=Af40H4V4uBDe2w58F522DyY8xrQbIpRkMkFH2ocmM_vlD1Y7wVd--K8qfz5g0ZvHjJe6tQcPSmcZvqMW1-Bphjl5GwMtVg9iTEM61fv4qoQLk3FRW1jIwyisEIwfsf-0WwdM&ved=2ahUKEwj5vpG63qSNAxXPGVkFHdfsMZw4ChDw0wN6BAgMEBc&biw=1146&bih=825&dpr=2 link]} --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Ping: @Ethmostigmus, @Hal Nordmann, @HerBauhaus. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Just FYI, two of the refs you added are duplicates of a reference already in the article (Schutte and Thoreau's "The Austral Launch Vehicle: 2014 Progress in Reducing Space Transportation Cost through Reusability, Modularity and Simplicity"), I assume this was a mistake. The third reference I see you've added, Preller and Smart's "SPARTAN: Scramjet Powered Accelerator for Reusable Technology AdvaNcement", is a conference paper that only briefly mentions the ALV. Both Schutte and Thoreau's paper and Preller and Smart's paper were presented at the same conference, the 12th Reinventing Space Conference that was held in 2014 (they are listed online as being published in 2016/2017, but this is just when the proceedings were made available online - the actual papers were presented in 2014). The fourth reference, "Scramjets for Reusable Launch of Small Satellites" also by Preller and Smart, also seems to only be a passing mention. That gives us two papers from 2014 and one from 2015. Looking at those references and the Google results, I can't find any evidence of further developments since 2015, and even at the time the coverage was quite minimal. This is worth noting because it indicates a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. I maintain that this fails GNG, and is best covered with due weight in an existing article like reusable launch vehicle. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Comment: Hi @A. B., I've coincidentally stumbled across the same sources you added as part of my !vote review. The rub here is that all the authors, including Peter Thoreau, Michael Smart, and Dawid Preller from the University of Queensland, and Adriaan Schutte from Heliaq Advanced Engineering, are directly affiliated with the institutions that developed the ALV concept. Since the ALV was created by Heliaq Advanced Engineering and the University of Queensland, I’ve classified these as primary sources. That said, if I’ve been too strict with my interpretation of secondary sources, I’m more than happy to revisit the sourcing question again. HerBauhaus (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:Good point. I’ve been convinced this just had to be notable; something about rockets and space just begs press coverage but where was it on Google News?? Then I thought to check http://www.google.com.au -sure enough, there were news articles. It was late last night and I’m busy today; I may or may not get to it. Thanks for looking at this, HerBauhaus. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:*::At the risk of being accused of "ref-bombing", I have added 7 news articles including Australian Financial Review, the ABC Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Royal Aeronautical Society and Aviation Week & Space Technology (the global aerospace and aviation industry magazine) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::*After checking through all of the references you've added, I still do not see evidence of significant or sustained independent coverage. Every source was published between 2014 and 2017, seemingly because the project stalled after that point, and even within that period of active development the coverage is scant. Preller and Smart's works barely mention the ALV, while the ABC and AFR articles mention it only in passing. Aerospace magazine gives a bit more detail, but its coverage is still extremely brief (and focused on SPARTAN, not the ALV). The iTnews article also provides no significant coverage of the ALV, mostly consists of quotes from individuals involved in the project about the potential of reusable launch vehicles. Ditto for the articles in the Register and New Atlas. None of these sources, besides the initial three (non-independent) sources already present in the article, provide coverage that could be considered significant. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 13:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::*:The sources disagree on terminology. In some articles, the SPARTAN second stage is part of the overall 3-stage project known as the "Austral Launch Vehicle" project. In others, the Austral Launch Vehicle first stage is part of the overall 3-stage project known as the "SPARTAN" project.

::::*:What I know is that the overall 3-stage project is notable. Perhaps the answer is to rename this article to something else. I'm open to suggestions.

::::*:I'm also open to draftifying the article and I will work on it. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::*::The plot thickens.

::::*::It looks like a company formed in 2019, Hypersonix Launch Systems, took over work on the SPARTAN second stage and [https://mechmining.uq.edu.au/article/2021/05/hypersonix-successfully-demonstrates-spartan-scramjet-performance-mach-5-mach-10 tested it in 2021]. This project, Heliaq Advanced Engineering (ALV's original developer now defunct?) and Hypersonix all have close ties to the University of Queensland's [https://mechmining.uq.edu.au/research/hypersonics Centre for Hypersonics].

::::*::Also in 2021, the U.S., U.K. and Australia signed the AUKUS agreement in 2021; it included "Hypersonic and Counter-Hypersonic Capabilities" which built on the existing joint U.S.-Australian SCIFiRE hypersonic cruise missile project. The University of Queensland is involved in this as well.

::::*::At the time, hypersonics was touted as Australia's flagship contribution to an agreeement that was mostly about nuclear submarine technology.

::::*::I'm just guessing but Hypersonix and U of Q probably shifted to much more lucrative defense work and away from competing with SpaceX and everyone else. All 3 countries are far behind Russia and China in hypersonic capabilities.

::::*::Collectively all this content is notable and needs a good home on Wikipedia. I'm not sure where -- suggestions? A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::*:::Happy to help with any of the heavy lifting if you decide to draftify. Feel free to ping me for sourcing or the write-up. HerBauhaus (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::* Hi @A. B., the first 7 (existing) sources in the article are from researchers Smart, Schutte, Thoreau, and Preller, all directly tied to UQ/HAE and the ALV project, making them primary sources. Of the next 7 (new) sources you added, only two are solid WP:THREE candidates: The Register offers clear, independent coverage of ALV, and Financial Review provides balanced coverage, though it includes a few quotes from Smart. Three are borderline: ABC is heavily reliant on Smart's quotes, Aviation Week gives technical context but doesn’t focus on ALV, and New Atlas covers ALV under the broader SPARTAN project with heavy developer input. The remaining two, AEROSPACE and iTnews, are weak as they rely almost entirely on developer statements. To be fair, by Australian standards, Smart is not just a typical researcher. He’s a recognized expert in hypersonics who spent a decade at NASA before joining UQ ([https://www.edx.org/bio/professor-michael-smart]), which is quite an uncommon profile. This prominence likely explains why he appears in nearly every source on ALV, sometimes tipping the balance on journalistic independence. HerBauhaus (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.