Armchair Astronaut

Hello Armchair Astronaut! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for signing up. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --- Davandron | Talk 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting into Wikipedia Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Resolving ambiguity (example:Welcome) Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Gunter's Space Page significant?

Hi there, welcome to wikipedia. I'm going to flag this page you made as recommended for delete; it doesn't seem to be appropriate for the wikipedia and almost like an ad for the website. Perhaps you can help explain why you felt this article should be created? - Davandron | Talk 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Davandron. LanceBarber 05:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, if i my entry does not follow the rules for pages on wikipedia. As i am doing research on the topic of the history of spaceflight, i think, that Gunter's Space Page, as well as the already included Encyclopedia Astronautica and Jonathan's Space Report are the most comprehensive and reliable sources for data on spaceflight. Although it is a privat website (as well as the other two mentioned) i think it is worth mentioning as a reference work on this admittedly very special topic. I have noticed, that this page is mentioned as reference also on a large number of spaceflight articles here in Wikipedia (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Gunter's_Space_Page) ---Armchair Astronaut 08:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is very good that Gunter's external site is referenced by many internal articles, along with thousands of other external references, but that does not constitute the reasoning for Gunter's having it own Wiki article. Think of this... would you be able to write an article on Gunter's that could be of significance such one might find the information important enough to be in Britannica or World Book or Funk and Wagnalls? If so, charge ahead. Just because a external site is very popular does not warrant being an article on its own. Side note, I added a new article a few months ago and was challenged as you are; this forced me to rewrite the aritcle in such of way it as it added to an encyclopedia environment. Find other articles that parallel the scope of Gunter's and persue its development. Good Luck. LanceBarber 15:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan's Space Report & Encyclopedia Astronautica commentary

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view and be able to be reliably sourced . A contribution you made to Jonathan's Space Report and Encyclopedia Astronautica appears to carry a non-neutral point of view and is not reliably sourced (nor is it likely possible to reliably source such a statement about the sites), and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. "one of the most important/interesting" is neither able to be reliably sourced and is merely a POV. Ageekgal (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)