Talk:Falcon 9 B1056

Overturning non-consensus decided decision to remove B1056

@Mfb: @Insertcleverphrasehere: @C-randles: @JFG: @Fcrary: @OkayKenji: @Gial Ackbar: Unfortunately, a lot of these important articles have been deleted without any of us being notified about the move. I agree it may seem much, I only intended to do B1046 and B1048 but ended up doing B1047 and started a trend which resulted in more. But these articles allow for much more information. Some of the articles like B1050, B1051 can remain deleted for now, pending further discussion but significant ones, especially B1046 and B1048 with their reusability milestone significance, deserve their own article. Their info cannot be stored in List of Falcon 9 first stage Boosters or the main article. I move on this page B1056 be re-instated. - AndrewRG10 (talk) 9:57, February 16 2020 (UTC)

I was planning to revive this after launch due to the notoriety but I now have even more reason due to circumstances --AndrewRG10 (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this notable enough to have a page? Is it claim to be 'First flight proven booster to fail landing' for which we haven't found a citation in 18 months. Clearly really important if we haven't even got a RS saying this. Having typed this, I have now found a ref and added it. C-randles (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]