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. The article has been substantially rewritten and now sufficiently meets the criteria for inclusion. Nakon 04:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moongate (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A moonshot conspiracy book which says the moon has much higher gravity than NASA admits, and other amazing claims. The article is referenced only to the book. I could not find references or reviews to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (books). It is held by only 21 libraries worldwide, per Worldcat. Edison (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NASA article is a review of the book, and the other sources analyze the book's ideas in detail. I agree that WP:GNG is easily met.

    This article is about the book itself rather the fringe theory espoused by the book, so I don't think a merge is required by WP:FRINGE since the book passes WP:GNG. Cunard (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mere synopses (with no interpretation) are not original research per MOS:PLOT, which says:

    Presenting fictional material from the original work is allowed, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, per WP:PRIMARY, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research. Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work.

    As I wrote to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change, WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP and there is no deadline. That the article is currently "a summary of the book" is not a valid reason for deletion. The article has the potential to contain secondary analysis (see the sources I provided above):
    1. NASA: The book is a "sensationalistic exposé". The "Evidence of Extraterrestrial Interference in the Space Program" chapter indicates the "highly speculative and tenuous tenor of the book, much of which is quite technical". The book is "Lightly footnoted with references alike to scholarly sources and The National Enquirer, the work should be consulted with great caution by those without a solid grounding in space history and technology." This review of the book goes beyond just plot information and is clearly the "significant coverage" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
    2. Sadek Adam's book: The book is "a brilliant expose". It has "beautiful photographs of anomalies on the moon." It has an "excellent chapter on the hollow earth".
    3. Jonathan Vankin's book: He spends five pages analyzing the book's ideas.
    Cunard (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Presenting fictional material from the original work is allowed, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article,
The passages are not short, they constitute the entire article. They have no context, because there is none in the article, it is only the plot summary, nothing more. They constitute not only the main portion, but all of the article. As you have supplied this information, may I assume you are now voting to delete? As you point out, there is no deadline to create the article. It can await proper sourcing. Thank you for adding policy information to support my vote.
Might I add, if you put as much into the articles as you put into arguing to keep them, they might be Wikipedia articles by this time?MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It can await proper sourcing." – that statement applies only to BLPs and BLP-related material. For all other articles, Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required applies. Cunard (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is from the article "There is no deadline" that you link to above, not about BLPs. Did you read it? Neither did I past the first paragraph which showed me you had not read it:
"We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established.
Wikipedia is not Wikinews and has no need to scoop anyone. Turn this into a strength by working on your article in your userspace or scratchpad until you have the best possible article, fully referenced, a masterpiece of neutrality. And if someone beats you to it, makes that first place in the edit history, so what? Merge in what you have and turn a stub or whatever into a good article. Wikipedia is not a competition either.
Above all, creating an article without establishing the basis of the content and its significance is a bad idea. There really are no points for being first; being the author of the best and most neutral content will earn you far greater kudos."
(Emphasis added.) MicroPaLeo (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already in mainspace, so the quote isn't particularly applicable. I have established with the sources I posted above that several reliable sources consider the book significant enough to review and analyze it. Cunard (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 28 February 2015 (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.