Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adverse health effects from lunar dust exposure


 * 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. Jujutacular (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Adverse health effects from lunar dust exposure

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod. An essay or research paper is not encyclopaedic content and does not belong here. When I prodded the article I expressed concerns that it seemed to be an original essay synthesised from sources, however User:Alexbrn has since noted that it has been lifted word-for-word from a (pd) NASA document. Either way, it should either be moved to WikiSource, or more likely just deleted.  W.  D.   Graham  10:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's un-encyclopedic/essay like, with possible original research. If its just copied directly from the NASA document then its better placed at WikiSource, or some content could be merged into Lunar soil which already has a small section on harmful effects of lunar dust. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the article has issues, it is referenced and it is about a notable topic. If you conduct a quick search] you find plenty of academic papers about the topic:, , , , just from the first results page. All concerns about original research etc. can be solved by editing and, since deletion is not a substitute for cleanup, our deletion policy requires not to delete.--  cyclopia  speak!  13:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but in this case it is beyond salvage, best practise would probably be to delete and let someone who wants to write an encyclopaedic article, rather than a research paper, have a blank slate. This is an encyclopaedia, not a journal. -- W.  D.   Graham  14:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the problem is not the topic, then it cannot be "beyond salvage" by definition. I agree with DGG below, but even if it was completely unsuitable, you could still use the sources as a useful startpoint for a rewrite. -- cyclopia  speak!  12:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think it beyond salvage. it's not basically OR, though some is included, it could equally well be quoted as the recommendations of the authors of the report, since the report is a RS. ; there is not necessarily much distinction between a review article in a journal and a WP article, except that the WP article cannot itself make any judgment, but can only report it--as do, in fact, many published review articles.   The question is the degree to which the review is overly technical, and the way to deal with that is sometimes abridgment. I would in fact strongly encourage qualified  people to write material for journals with a free license in a manner that could be used here also. It's perhaps one of the best ways of enlisting expert authors, because in addition to the benefit of having contributed to WP, they also get the credit for a conventionally published article.   And we've always used US-PD material, though of course it needs to be more exactly attributed in the article to show just what parts may have been added to or revised from the original.  DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fix it. This is certainly not beyond repair, and the subject is interesting and notable, as follows from the significant list of currently included references and content.My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete it in Wikipedia, as a COPYVIO and research-paper essay, not an encyclopedia article. Move the source to Wikisource where it belongs.  N2e (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

 I did see several places where the first person was used "we..." but that's a reason for rewriting, not deletion. In reply to N2e, PD is short for "public domain," meaning not copyrighted. — rybec   21:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and partially rewrite — This article definitely has quite a bit of potential, there are several reliable sources that are already used in the article, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more out there. AfD isn't cleanup, although the article could admittedly use a considerable amount, such as adding more refs to the "Exploration mission operational scenarios" section and removing inappropriate first-person words throughout the article. --  SamX‧☎‧✎‧ S  20:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment shouldn't this just be called health effects from lunar dust exposure ? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a copyright violation when excerpted sources are public domain; notable per sources. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - it may not be a copyvio, but it is plagiarism. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually it's a good article and I was happy when Google got me to it as I was searching for information about what this article is about. It surprised me to see that it's nominated for deletion. Not much of an argument but just to support the article which I really liked. Thank you. Megahmad (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - OR, COPYVIO or plagiarism at best. Doesn't seem to be enough verifiable non-OR references to support article. Caffeyw (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question Is anyone going to clean this article? I only saw one minor edit since this article went to AFD and no one is dealing with the plagiarized content. Yes Wikipedia is not cleanup, but this is not an exception the way the article stands now. There is consensus to keep, but all of those arguments above are moot if the questionable content isn't rewritten or removed. Secret account 21:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the "plagarized" content PD-NASA? In that case, there is no cleanup necessary... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - appears to be a notable topic, and the plagarism/copyvio concerns are not revelvant to copying from a PD source. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Good article, perhaps a bit wordy. Informative. Possesive Pronoun Problem: use of "our" implies WP, not NASA. ```Buster Seven   Talk  11:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.