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 — Caknuck 19:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Moonwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I just came across this article while deleting images lacking in source information- there was an image originally from this, and I thought it a shame to lose it, and so I tried to find the source online, as it claimed to be from NASA. However, when I started doing a little searching, I could find no reference to this programme online, and so have a horrible feeling that it is a hoax. It has been edited almost exclusively by a single editor, sources are print publications, but I am not certain how genuine they are. I may be completely wrong here- if so, I apologise, I just think it is better to be safe. J Milburn 22:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:ESSAY for numerous examples of POV writing. I also suspect WP:COPYVIO. The use of print sources is not in itself reason for deletion, though the fact there are no references online to the print source raises verifiability issues. Changed to Keep per citations produced by other users. --Nonstopdrivel 22:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment It appears that I entered the wrong search string in my Google search. I have since been able to corroborate the other sources listed and thus change my opinion to Keep. I still remain unconvinced that the Smithsonian annual report citation is appropriate, in that it is not a third-party reference. I also cannot shake the feeling that at least parts of the article was cut-and-pasted from somewhere (certain paragraphs seem to have a promotional tone), but I haven't found evidence of this, so I have stricken the comment for now. I have added the article to my watchlist and will do some work on its tone later this week. --Nonstopdrivel 00:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Further Comment: After a rather comprehensive web search, I can find no evidence for WP:COPYVIO, at least not of existing web sources; there remains the possibility some of the verbiage was cribbed from print sources. That being said, some questionable claims that cannot be verified online are made in this article; for example, the only reference to any relationship between James A. Westphal (himself a redlink) and Moonwatch listed online is a very obscure MARC record of a transcript of an oral interview from the early 1980s (which isn't even downloadable). So without citations to paper sources being provided to corroborate some of the claims of this article, certain portions fall into the realm of WP:OR and should probably be deleted. --Nonstopdrivel 00:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well as your raft of suspicions that this article is unsourced, a copy vio of something on the net and worthy of deletion as a whole have all been disproved in the last few minutes maybe you ought to just hang fire on deleting material based on your suspicions of Original Research for just a tick? Just a friendly suggestion. You site a source for a link between Westphal and Moonwatch and then seem to say that it doesn't count. Why is that exactly? Of course it's 'obscure', that doesn't mean it isn't real and the fact that it's not downloadable on the Internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Have you tried contacting the original writer of the article and asking him for his sources for his writing? Nick mallory 00:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not, and after further reading and thought, I freely admit admit the error of my ways and have stricken the remainder of my prior comments. I shall endeavour to be more circumspect in my evaluations in the future. My apologies to the original author of these piece. I will leave a request on their Talk page to cite the relevant portions. If citations for the claims cannot be produced, the uncited sections can be removed at that time. --Nonstopdrivel 14:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough pal. Nick mallory 02:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP For heaven's sake. [[1]] Operation Moonwatch was launched by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. Announcement of the program was made in a news conference on 11 September 1956 by Dr. Armand N. Spitz, coordinator of visual satellite observations. Operation Moonwatch was started to track the path of a satellite to be launched by the United States during the International Geophysical Year (7/1/1958-12/31/1958). Tracking was accomplished by teams of volunteers, mostly amateur astronomers. Citation: Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution for the year 1957, p. 8, 74. This [2] is from the Harvard Crimson at the time, this [3] and this [4] from Time Magazine in 1957. There are plenty of sources and these have been added to the article. Nick mallory 22:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Yes, the Smithsonian Institution described the program in its annual report, but that hardly qualifies as a third-party source, and it certainly does nothing to establish notability. It stretches credulity to imply that anything the Smithsonian Institution does is notable. Are there any external sources that point to this program? --Nonstopdrivel 23:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the two in TIME MAGAZINE maybe or the Harvard Crimson? Or the several independent sources now given in the article from Universities, Astronomy Groups and Astronomers from around the world? [5][6] This was a worldwide programme which, famously, observed Sputnik. If you can spare three seconds why not try googling, I don't know, "Operation Moonwatch". I found all these [7] Nick mallory 23:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Another reference is Something New Under the Sun: Satellites and the beginning of the space age by Helen Gavaghan, ISBN 0-387-94914-3, pg 38-42 & 49. But that book calls it Project Moonwatch. BTW, I think the IGY started 7/1/57, not 58. Also, the article needs to taks out a lot of caps in the section titles. Bubba73 (talk), 00:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this and this are just two of many references to it. Bubba73 (talk), 00:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per sources noted above. They ought to be included in the article though! Debivort 00:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are now. Nick mallory 00:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Certainly doesn't look like a hoax to me, and notability has been established too. MLilburne 09:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the primary author of this article, I have no idea why it would be selected for deletion or how it could be considered a hoax. Moonwatch was a REAL program run by the Smithsonian for nearly 20 years; the fact that I included a reference to the archival materials pertaining to Moonwatch at the Smithsonian should help alleviate any concerns.

• Keep Notability established, [but here is another link anyway from the NY Times. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 01:12, 25 June 2007 (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.