Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return


 * 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   merge to  Mars sample return mission.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Concerns for an early Mars sample return

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Topic not notable enough to warrant separate article and represents an unnecessary POV content fork Warren Platts (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that the article as it was at the time of nomination has been blanked out and replaced by Robert the Inventor's 12,000 14,000 word apologia. The text that has been proposed to be merged into the main Mars sample return mission article may be seen here:  MSR Merge Text Warren Platts (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and Merge.  The article is an unsalvageable mess of POV, irrelevant information and WP:SYN from a single user Robertinventor. He admits the article was originally invented in order to raise awareness of the purported existential threat of Mars sample return mission. In addition, the very word "early" as used in the title and throughout the article is an unsourced neologism invented by Robertinventor and given special definition(s) just for use in this article; that in itself is justification for deletion. Moreover, the only source he can provide that MSR ought not to be undertaken or postponed indefinitely because of back contamination worries stems from a very small group, known as the International Committee Against Mars Sample Return, a fringe group populated by scientists notable only for their fringe scientific theories. There is already a Wikipedia article on this group. Moreover, the mainstream view is that MSR will be safe, and that any potential back contamination risks can certainly be managed. Therefore, the very existence of the article gives undue weight to an extreme, virtually fringe, POV. However, there remains some useful content in the article. My recommendation is that prior to deletion, the useful content of the page (< 5% and may be found at  MSR Merge Text) be merged with the main MSR article. This would result in a vast improvement in the back contamination section of the main MSR article. Warren Platts (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is notable by the criteria of Wikipedia with many papers in notable peer reviewed journals. The mainstream view as represented in the official ESF and NRC reports conclude that the probability of Environmental disruption can be reduced to a level that is considered acceptable, but not to zero. They acknowledge it as a valid concern. They also say that since in worse case the effects could be experienced more widely than the nation that launches the mission, it requires international debate for both legal and ethical reasons.  The view that it is safe without qualification is held only by Zubrin in the published literature. This is as much a minority view in the published literature as the ICAMSR, who indeed, have published more on it. In my view a scientific article type "Objective NPOV" is inappropriate here. Ethical debates require many different POVs to be presented exactly as they are held by their proponents. I believe this may be partly why it comes over as such a mess to editors who are used mainly to scientific articles with a single unifying "Objective NPOV", but this is how it has to be done here. See Writing for the opponent: "Editors must either create edits for the opposing point of view themselves, or at least allow it. Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's point of view." I have presented Zubrin's view in the article. I have given the other POVs their own sections too. I feel that this is the only way such things can be treated in an encyclopedia. Robert Walker (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

All the studies by NASA and ESA etc acknowledge that though the probability of this happening is judged by informed scientists to be very low, the worst case scenario is destruction of entire ecosystems on Earth by replicating biological entities returned from Mars.


 * This is not a fringe view. It is the mainstream view. As Carl Sagan wrote so eloquently:


 * The official studies deal with this issue by reducing the probability of this happening to low numbers such as one chance in a million of a release, so reducing the originally low probability a further million fold.


 * These studies by the ESA and NASA are extensive and cover many issues and risks that need to be studied and mitigated, including detailed discussion of whether and how such risks can be contained. Those issues by themselves deserve a separate article.


 * There is a requirement for public debate, as for any policy that has a potential environmental impact.


 * Then, since the potential impact could affect all countries internationally the ESA report concluded that a world wide international debate is required. This is both a legal and also an ethical requirement.


 * Yes it is true that only three notable scientists (notable in sense of wikipedia) belong to the ICAMSR which is opposed to return of MSR to Earth at an early stage before in situ studies. Yet, they have interesting minority views on the subject and the ICAMSR is quoted in science news reports on MSR, and Barry DiGregorio has published in notable sources - all this is notable enough for inclusion in the article.


 * Historically Carl Sagan was first to raise it as a matter of concern, and inspired all those writing on this subject. His conclusion that there is a low probability existential risk is accepted by all the experts who study it to this day, and so that is another aspect of the subject that is notable enough for coverage in the article.


 * There are papers on the subject also on the legal, theological and philosophical aspects of the debate. These papers also are easily notable enough for mention in the article.


 * There are also many intermediate views published such as those of specialists from the recent Telerobotics conference, who advocate preliminary study of the samples by humans orbiting telerobitics on the surface from Mars orbit as a way to reduce contamination risks both ways.


 * Also some micro-biologist have the POV that the MSR is an inefficient way to study Mars for life since they consider location of biologically interesting samples a tough problem requiring advanced instruments in situ to solve, and so feel that it is almost certain that the samples will be biologically uninteresting if returned before in situ dtudies.


 * These published views are all relevant to the public debate that will be needed. Those in favour of an early MSR (including the official reports) balance the science value against the low probability of existential risk of a MSR to justify the return. You can't discuss the risks adequately without also discussing the science return.


 * In short it is a subject of a sufficiently extensive literature of notable peer reviewed articles, and statements by notable people to require an article. Though indeed of low importance, as such things are rated in wikipedia, still, is itself a subject notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia. If someone comes across this subject in the literature and turns to wikipedia to find out more, then there should be an article covering it for them to read.


 * I do not claim that it is of high importance, but IMO with all these cited sources, it easily crosses the threshold of notability for low importance notable wikipedia articles. Also because wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia, theere is no requirement for low importance articles to be short. The guidelines make it clear that they should be as long as is needed to present the subject clearly.


 * You can see the extent of the subject matter from this version in my user space. User:Robertinventor/Debate_about_scientific_value_of_Mars_sample_return_and_methods_to_avert_low_probability_existential_risks


 * The current version in the main space needs work because I have just reverted it to the way it was before the edit war with Warren. I first need to be sure it won't be reverted back again. If it is okay to work on it, then I can begin to deal with some of the issues that have already been discovered and fixed in the version of the article in my user space. Robert Walker (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * *Delete. The article in Robert's sandbox is an unsalvageable mess of POV, irrelevant information and WP:SYN from a single user (Robert). The ESA and NASA (and National Academy of sciences, etc.) are cited in the live article. The risk mitigation measures are adequately discussed. There are about two notable scientists who are against MSR because of back contamination worries--and they are notable mainly for their (other) fringe ideas. And Sagan, writing in 1985, was for MSR. There is not an extensive literature by lawyers, theologians, and philosophers. There is but one study by a lawyer and it is cited. The theologian in question merely makes the redundant claim that there be a public review of MSR--something NASA already has in place. There are no so-called intermediate views: proposals to do more in situ research because of back contamination worries are the fringe view of ICASMR itself--no one else (besides Robert in his published opinion piece http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor039s_column/need_caution_early_mars_sample_return_opinion_piece-113913 ) argues that we should do more robotic research because of BC worries. The thousand words on the subject in the live article is plenty and arguably gives to much weight to the minority, fear-mongering view that the world faces an existential risk because of MSR. The (live) article should be deleted and merged IMHO. Warren Platts (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren I don't think you can put your POV twice as a bulleted point in an AfD Robert Walker (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Robert, the second vote was referring specifically to your sandbox monograph. Surely you're not voting to keep the live article as it is are you? You might want to change it to "Delete and Replace w/ ..." Warren Platts (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, this is where your idea to have an AfD discussion of your stub after removing most of the content first is just SO CONFUSING. There is no such option as "Delete and replace" in an AfD discussion. I propose to keep this as a stub, if it is a choice of delete or keep only - but it is much clearer if I replace it with my version first before the AfD, as that is what you really want to delete after all. You have just gone about it in a complicated way by first removing most of the content before starting an AfD. Robert Walker (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure there is. There is no law in Wikipedia that says an article can't be deleted and replaced by another, radically different version of the article. To the admins: I have no objection to "Delete and Replace w/  User:Robertinventor/Debate_about_scientific_value_of_Mars_sample_return_and_methods_to_avert_low_probability_existential_risks" as being an option on the table for discussion (although of course I would disagree with that option). Warren Platts (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As I have just said on the talk page for the article, what you have done gives me, the original editor, no way to improve the article in response to the AfD debate. It is bizarre for the proposor of the AfD to also be the main editor of the article in its current form, and for the proposor to first remove most of the content until it only a stub is left and then propse that stub for deletion.


 * You must give me the opportunity during the discussion to fix the article as best I can. As a first step I have restored the original version which is also fixed with many subsequent edits made only by myself (and so causing no attribution issues in the article history). I can then continue to work on it during hte deletion discussion to fix any issues raised, as can any other editors who are in favour of keeping the article. Robert Walker (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In our discussion just now on the talk page I suggested either a merge discussion, or let me put my version in place of yours and do an AfD. It is your idea to do an AfD for your version, which doesn't make any sense to me as a way to proceed in the circumstances. Robert Walker (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, my idea was to merge the live article into the "Back contamination" section of the main MSR article. You vetoed that option. Therefore, deletion is the only other available option that I can see my friend.... Warren Platts (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See: Articles_for_deletion


 * Seems as the nominator you shouldn't put a bulleted POV at all.


 * The operative phrase is "(unless indicated otherwise)". Yes, I nominated the article for deletion. However, I believe that what useful content remains should be merged with the main MSR article. Thanks. Warren Platts (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have just replaced it with my version. I suggest we debate that as an AfD, not your version, as I suggested on the talk page before you did the AfD, as it is you who want to delete the article and I'm the one who wants to keep it. Surely therefore my version is the one that should be discussed for deletion, not yours, which has most of the article removed already. Robert Walker (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Reverted! Warren Platts (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've reverted it to the way it was before you deleted most of it. VQuaker has an issue with me working on it in my user space, which is why I have done a revert this time instead. But - I must be permitted to work on the article to prevent its deletion. You can't propose it for deletion and simultaneously through edit warring, ban me from editing it to improve it to help it to survive AfD. That's totally unfair! Robert Walker (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that the live article that was nominated for deletion has been blanked out, and unilaterally replaced by Robert's 12,000 word monograph... Warren Platts (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, and merge key info on Back contamination. —As a professional working in astrobiology, my assessment is that this article is little more than a slanted alarmist editorial rant. The fact that biologists plan to play it safe, is not a synonym of impending doom. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I would urge you to take a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample_return#Back_contamination ; the "Back contamination" section is in bad shape and would be improved by a merge. A version of what the main MSR article would look like in that case is preserved in the history before Robert reverted it.Warren Platts (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A reasonable request; as long as only the main points are presented and referenced in Back contamination], not Walker's interpretations. (I changed my comment/vote above accordingly). BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the way Warren has handled this AfD may be a criterion for a Speedy Keep
See: Deletion_process "Nominations which are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion"

Basically as you can see from the history of the article, he rewrote and deleted most of my content. The history is:

1. He did a bold edit that removed most of the article.

2. I reverted the edit, pointed out that the material he deleted was backed up with citations, and should be discussed first on the talk page

3. He deleted it again.

4. I then gave up working on the article as you are recommended to do in an edit war and attempted discussion in the talk page. He joined in the discussion but continued to work on it in the main space during the edit war.

5. The discussion was unproductive. No other editor apart from Warren has worked on it except one editor who suggested a sentence for the lead section in the talk page, and bots and editors correcting typos, and other editors adding pov and editorial comment tags.

As a result I consider it as still in the middle of an edit war. I am unable to work on it in the main space because Warren would immediately delete or revert my edits. For that reason I worked on it in my user space instead. Whether that is right or not, it can't be denied that it is still an edit war situation and that I am unable to work on the article to improve its chances for survival of AfD.

I have just now tried a reversion to the state it was in before the edit war began so I can work on it, but Warren has already said on the talk page that he will revert and keep reverting my edits, so I don't expect this to last long.

See his comment in Revert Robert's reversion : " I will re-revert again to the point where I'm banned from Wikipedia. That's how much I strongly feel that "your" article is way over the top. ". That has also been the general tone of the entire discussion to date, and the reason I feel I can't work on the article in main space myself, and why I consider it to be still in the middle of an extended edit war.

In those circumstances I believe a speedy keep may be appropriate. An AfD would be appropriate if I am permitted to work on the article first without edit warring. Especially since the warring editor is the one proposing deletion. Robert Walker (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Robert, I did you a favor by editing down your 12,000 word (5 times the length of the main MSR article) POV-laden editorial. You were invited multiple times to help work on it. You chose not to. Vote remains DELETE the 12,000 word editorial; MERGE the 1,000 word distillation into the main MSR article. Warren Platts (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren you know very well that if I were to edit it as I wish, then you would immediately revert my edits as you did when I attempted to undo your massive deletions during the initial stages of the edit war. My version was POV laden, yes, but not with my own POV. My own POV didn't occur in it. You seem to miss the point in an article on a debate on a controversial topic, which is to present all the POVs and so it should be POV laden with many different POVs. You would delete any attempt to include sections on POVs that differ from the editorial tone of the current article, which basically is that back contamination is a non issue. That is why you make it so short, because you have removed all the interesting content and will remove it if I attempt to put it back in again. I can't edit this article if prohibited from including any of the material that I consider to be the main substance of the article. Robert Walker (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WARREN HAS JUST DELETED MY MOST RECENT REPLY WHICH WAS HERE. Robert Walker (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The original version of the article should have been deleted because it violates the WP:UNDUE policy. That's why I say I did you a favor by editing it down. I could have nominated it for deletion back then, but I tried to work with you instead first. Here is what Jimbo Wales says on the subject:


 * The fact is that the mainstream scientific view is that back contamination IS a non-issue, or rather, it is a technical issue of engineering the sample return container and receiving facility. The POV that MSR could cause the extinction of Homo sapiens is a fringe view supported by a tiny and lonely minority of scientists notable mainly for their other fringe views, such as that influenza outbreaks are caused by spores from space (Wickramasinghe), or that the Viking probe actually detected life (Levin). Richard Hoagland territory in other words. This does not warrant a separate article. A section in the main MSR article that briefly discusses is possibly appropriate, but even that is debatable. Warren Platts (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is totally not a fringe view. The ESA and NASA reports both acknowledge the possibility of large scale negative effects on Earth's inhabitants or environment due to replicating biological entities returned from Mars. Both concur with Carl Sagan that it can't be ruled out. That much is mainstream, and not a fringe "loony fringe" idea.


 * That much is agreed by all the published sources that I found. The only ones disagreeing with those are some space enthusiasts posting to forums such as the nasaspaceflight.com forum you frequent. Their views are not published anywhere as far as I can tell. If I had a published source for them, I would include it.


 * In the published literature, differing POVs depend mainly on how you react to that risk. The maintream view is that since the existential risk is of low probability already, if you can reduce it further by another million fold reductio, then it is low enough in probability to be not a matter of concern.


 * But there is room for debate on whether that is a sufficient reduction for something so severe as an existential risk, and about how confident one can be that such a reduction is achieved using novel technology. It is also all tied up with questions of science value, since it would be absurd to engage in a policy with even a tiny probability of existential risk, unless you had something else in its favour which you considered was able to balance that existential risk.


 * And interesting minority views do have their place in Wikipedia in subsidiary articles. This is a subsidiary article so it is exactly the sort of place where such views can be included. Robert Walker (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There you just said it yourself: "The maintream view is that since the existential risk is of low probability already, if you can reduce it further by another million fold reductio, then it is low enough in probability to be not a matter of concern." Exactly. The "debate" stems from ICASMR. They are a fringe group populated by fringe scientists. Their minority POV doesn't warrant a separate article that's 5 times the length of the main MSR article.Warren Platts (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The debate as I see it is a much larger thing than the ICAMSR. It stems from Carl Sagan. It continues within the mainstream view as a detailed review of all the possibilities for backward contamination and existential risk, and ways of mitigating them.


 * I see the ICAMSR as one POV within this larger debate that also includes the other articles I cited such as the legal situation and the theological article, and the debate about science return.


 * If it was just the ICAMSR it might not be interesting enough for a separate article indeed. But in the context of all that other material, together with the legal requirement for international public debate, and the amount of published material, I think it is easily notable enough for a specialist article in wikipedia.


 * Comparing the article length with the main MSR article is beside the point because since wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia there is no requirement that lower profile articles should be shorter than higher profile articles. There are many articles in wikipedia that are specialist, low importance in the context of the whole encyclopedia, yet notable enough to be included, and can be as long or longer than far more "important" articles. You just use as much text as is needed to say what needs to be said.


 * I have never said this is a high importance article. Maybe in the future it might become so but at present, hardly anyone has even heard of the issues in the general public or even in the space community it is barely discussed. But there is a lot of research of that nature deserving of inclusion in wikipedia.


 * My Hexany article would be an example, of low importance generally, but of high importance to a small community of microtonal musicians. There are articles on the hexany musical structure within peer reviewed notable musical journals, and it is used by composers in compositions, and that was enough so that the conclusion of the AfD discussion was a clear consensus that it was notable enough to be included in wikipedia.


 * Similarly here. All I am saying is that there is enough material on it for it to be a significant low importance article in wikipedia.


 * Also, I have absolutely no wish to do POV pushing in wikipedia, or to put forward my own views on the matter. When I want to do that I write blog posts, contribute to forums, or write journalistic articles. My space20.com article might well get more views than this article, and it is also much more likely to get people thinking about the issues which is what I wanted to do, and to stimulate discussion, which it did on the page and also elsewhere on the web.


 * It would be unprofessional to use wikipedia in that way and I would never do it intentionally.


 * This article here I just want it to be here as a useful reference for those who want to find out about the various POVs on MSR and as a first stage pointing towards the primary sources so they can find out more if they so wish. My objection to your editing is that your version was no longer useful in that way IMO. Yes you did include many of the original references but without them clearly explained in the article itself. A long list of references is no substitute for a proper article on the subject. Robert Walker (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The Sagan quote you keep spamming all over the internet comes from 1973--before even the first Viking lander. His source is a 19th century science fiction novel. Since then there have been 20 successful missions to Mars and much preliminary engineering on potential MSR missions. Not surprisingly, writing in 1985, Sagan was for MSR, saying "we want to bring 'em back alive!"--if there is any life at all. ICASMR is the /only/ group agitating against MSR due to BC worries. Also, there is already a section on the scientific value of MSR in the main article. And yes, the length is important: an article that emphasizes a fringe, minority POV that's 5 times longer than the article on the mainstream POV is WP:UNDUE.Warren Platts (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * NOTE ABOVE Warren just deleted a comment where I said that we both know that if I were to include material on the POVS that to my mind are the main body of the debate, or were to delete his editorial synthesis, then my work would immediately be deleted / reverted. This is not mind reading. Just go and read through the talk page on the article and judge for yourself from his comments if it is at all likely that he would leave such edits in place for any length of time, or discuss them before deleting them. Does his attitude towards me reflect the attitude of an editor who encourages others with another POV to join in editing the article? Robert Walker (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, sorry, I see you have left the reverted version in place for now. Does this mean that we can have an AfD for the original reverted version? If that's okay and if I can continue to work on it to deal with any issues that arise during the dispute, or that I notice myself, then I withdraw what I just said about speedy delete, and we can have a civilized AfD discussion about whether the article in its original form should be deleted. Robert Walker (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If that is agreed I suggest that we both rewrite our Delete and Keep sections above so that they refer to the original version of the article as the subject of the AfD.


 * Also I think it will help for clarity to refrain from commenting on each other's posts here, to start with anyway, to help others coming to the debate can see what we both are saying and add separate keeps and deletes of their own.


 * If you want to keep the thread of comments you and I made on my statement above for future reference, it could be copied to the talk page perhaps. Just a suggestion, I think will help to make things easier for other editors.Robert Walker (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have edited my "keep" statement. I suggest you edit yours too, to add in any extra points that you feel need to be made, and we could do that iteratively improve our two statements until we are sure they are okay, a bit like in the dispute resolution process . And remove the long thread of comments on my statement, or just move it down here if you prefer. Do you agree? Robert Walker (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, struck out "in Robert's sandbox".... Warren Platts (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren you need to merge that entire comment on my Keep proposal with your own Delete proposal. I will remove it along with the entire discussion thread later today. It is a bit like the opening statements in a debate where each participant is given an opportunity to state their case without comment.Robert Walker (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems (from article talk page) that Warren has accepted that I have the right to work on the article to improve it to help it survive AfD, and don't have to use the version of the article provided by the proposer of deletion. In these circumstances I withdraw my "Speedy Keep" objection and for simplicity and clarity will move this entire discussion to the talk page later today. Robert Walker (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * . Gentlemen, there's no fighting in the war room. AfD is not the place for you to hash out your dispute. Each of you should make your point concisely and without bickering. Criminy. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed. Warren, I plan to edit this page to remove all the comments on the posts later today (someone has to do it), perhaps they could be copied over to the talk page for this page? Sometimes participants comment on other posts in an AfD discussion but just as a simple response e.g. if the delete proposal says that there are no citations it is reasonable to comment and say that you have just added some citations to the article to fix the issue mentioned. Robert Walker (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, please do not delete threaded edits. Just quit arguing in the AfD. If someone uninvolved wants to collapse the extended discussion fine. VQuakr (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh okay, collapsing is fine by me. What about what I just said to Warren, that a second Delete suggestion by the proposer of deletion for the article as a reply to a Keep is inappropriate in AfD? Robert Walker (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Collapsed accordingly. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments, guys, but we don't need more metadiscussion. We have asked for 3rd party comments in the past--no one took much interest (which ought to says something about the notability of the topic). So here we are. What we need is a rough concensus on whether to keep or delete this article. A vote followed by a substantive comment would be more helpful than comments about comments IMHO. Moreover, there are two completely different versions of the article floating out there: if you vote "Keep", be sure to specify which version you are referring to. Presumably if there is a merge, it won't be the 12,000 worder.... Warren Platts (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Must... resist... urge... to use a tu quoque. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Comment' Just to say, I am in the process of working on the article to deal with some of the issues mentioned in the delete proposals above. Particularly am working to make sure that every paragraph that says anything that could be regarded as controversial is properly attributed so I say that "xyz says that abc" throughout, so it is clear that my own POV is not present in the article, to deal with the objection that it is slanted. Also checking the citations for accuracy and making it easy for the reader to verify them. Also taking care to make it clear that all the way through it is thought by all those concerned to be a low probability existential risk to deal with criticism that it gives an alarmist impression. Also adding extra sections to express all the POVs I know about (published or notable ones) and with particular care to include POVs that are in favour of an early MSR prominently visible, to make sure the full range is included. Plus improving the overall structure of it and avoiding repetition. This is going to take a few days to complete, so it is somewhat mid-edit right now, any suggestions or recommendations welcomed! Robert Walker (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment To explain the length, Warren has continually asked me to prove that my paraphrases are accurate and keeps accusing me of cherry picking. I have made the sections longer with extensive paraphrasing and quotes in order to show that they report the original sources accurately. He still accuses me of cherry picking requiring inclusion of yet more material from the original sources which is why it has grown so long. I have just suggested on the talk page that I could put all this extra material into references "to assist editors in verifying my paraphrases" and this could reduce the size of the article considerably. I can write well and succintly when needed, but am finding it impossible to do so, in view of the need to have so much included in the body of the text to withstand his criticisms.Robert Walker (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * He also makes many requests to add new material to the article to address what he sees as its POV slant. E.g. recently required I add a section on an allegation by Zubrin that the whole thing is just a result of doomsday phobias by the scientists concerned. I don't have the original article for these allegations or the replies, yet, am willing to add this section once I do but of course all these requests add to the length of the article. Robert Walker (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Pare down to four sentences and merge with Mars_sample_return_mission. The article is an awful mess in its current state, but a review of the history shows that there are more approachable versions. More than a few sentences would be overcoverage. VQuakr (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. After watching parts of this debate for a few weeks now, I'm going to go here with a reluctant Keep, and possibly only a temporary Keep.  Two reasons:  1) It seems to me that a multiple-day and deeply-felt content dispute between two particular editors has moved to the AfD page; AfD's ought not to be decided that way, especially since in the many "tons" of phosphor that have been spilled in the verbosity of their defense of their positions, and their multiple versions and rapid changes of the article, it has been quite difficult to really figure out what a decent article might look like after editing over a longer period of time with input from more editors.  2) Although I don't personally "like" the position put forward in this article, I believe that Wikipedia is not censored and that view, especially a reasonably well-sourced representation of that view with citations to reliable sources, ought to be able to be encyclopedically covered by the Wikipedia.  N2e (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree that Wikipedia should not be censored. Therefore, since Robert is: (1) dead set on getting his POV into Wikipedia; and (2) his POV is basically a rehash of the fringe International Committee Against Mars Sample Return (ICAMSR) POV, then let him lay out the argument that MSR represents a clear and present existential risk to Planet Earth in the ICAMSR article. I am pretty sure that Robert will veto this proposal, but it could form the basis of a WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS nevertheless. Warren Platts (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I have just done a word count as an attempt at a way to detect any bias in the article.
 * Talk:Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return
 * It is clear that the ICAMSR form just a small part of the article. Indeed most of the material on concerns comes from the official ESF and NRC reports. Robert Walker (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I have just done a word count as an attempt at a way to detect any bias in the article.
 * Talk:Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return
 * The highest word count is for the prevailing view, e.g. summary of the ESF and NRC board reports 2989 words. Most people are unaware of the details of this view as it is rarely discussed which I think is the main reason it comes over as biased. It is unusual for an article discussing criticisms of the prevailing view to give the prevailing view so much more weight than any of the criticisms but is necessary here since the prevailing view, as in prevailing view amongst the experts, is so little known. Indeed I found far far more material on concerns with a MSR to Earth amongst the official studies than the ICAMSR.


 * The ICAMSR came in at 396 words. Zubrin's view which is aligned more or less with what Warren regards as the prevailing view comes in at 267 words. This is mainly because all I can find on it, saying that a MSR is unequivocally safe, is one transcript of an interview with Zubrin, which doesn't go into much detail on this point. There are editions of the Planetary report with a paper by Zubrin and several replies from Margaret Race of the Seti institute and others, but this is not available online even as abstracts and I am attempting to obtain access, have written to them to ask if I can buy copies of past editions but not yet had a reply. Have found no published surveys of views of the general public on this issue. The decadal report doesn't mention BC as far as I can tell. The one survey I found is a 1998 one of astrobiologists by Margaret Race (details in quote made into ref for editor verification or of course read the survey itself which is fairly short) in which many voiced concern with a MSR to Earth certainly not unanimous in support of it. In my personal experience present day astrobiologists that I talk about it to (I have several as facebook friends) are concerned, BatteryIncluded is the only exception so far of those I talked about it to. That is just anecdotal but suggests a present day repeat of the 1998 survey might well come to the same conclusions


 * Thus in my view it is inappropriate to treat this as an exposition of the views of ICAMSR - and incidentally I am not a member of the ICAMSR and am not affiliated with it. There are several differences between my personal POV and their POV. I could be persuaded that a MSR to Earth is safe, similar to Carl Sagan's view: "Perhaps Martian samples can be safely returned to Earth. But I would want to be very sure before considering a returned-sample mission." - that accurately expresses my own POV on the matter. My main personal reason for concern is tendency to treat it as a "public relations exercise", not treating it seriously enough e.g. no plans for "dummy runs" for the sample return, and no-one gives any hard numbers on the probabilities, either the target probabilities to aim for, or what the experts judge the original probabilities (where you expect a range of views on what they are). As a mathematician this is hugely frustrating as it makes a tremendous difference to the debate whether or not e.g. the initial probability is 1 in 1000 or 1 in a trillion for existential risks. This is a criticism of both extremes plus prevailing view - Zubrin, NRC, ESF, ICAMSR, none attempt to do this (this POV and criticism of course does not appear in the article). Robert Walker (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no way the article as is stands should be in article-space, since it's a clear POV content fork of Mars sample return mission. Additionally I see no issues here that couldn't be usefully covered in Mars sample return mission, Back-contamination or Sample return mission. I suggest userfication for the purposes of scavenging references before deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Have changed the main image for the article to one of the design proposals for a MSR Receiving facility. Hope this will help deal with perception of it as a POV fok of the main MSR article. Seems appropriate as a lot of the discussion centers on the safety of the receiving facility + whether that is the right approach at all. Robert Walker (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mars sample return mission, after toning down the POV. This is pretty clearly a WP:POVFORK and belongs in the parent article. AfD is not a way of resolving content disputes. The topic is very clearly notable, and it may be that an agreed-on Mars sample return mission section eventually gets spun out into its own article. However, this article is not it. Some of this material should probably also go into a Mars sample return mission section, which is closely related to, but logically separate from, the back-contamination concerns. -- 202.124.72.30 (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, just point of information, this article started as a section in Mars sample return mission and was split into a separate article as a result of discussion here: Talk:Mars sample return mission Robert Walker (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Mars sample return mission. This lengthy essay can be easily summarized with a few sentences and references to a few neutral overview sources.  There is no need for an original research screed such as this.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge. Agree with User:Sławomir Biały and others.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Rough Consensus
Well, it's been over a week now. The tally is 70% in favor of VASTLY paring down the article, and merging what's left into the main MSR article. The argument is that the article as it currently exists is a WP:POVFORK, and gives WP:UNDUE weight to a minority, virtually fringe POV. Of the votes to keep, one is from the author and sole editor of the article: he argues that (1) the topic is notable enough to warrant a nearly 16,000 word article containing 109 references; (2) an "Objective NPOV" is not appropriate for the article because it contains an ethical dimension; (3) the article is NPOV because all of the many POVs are presented. The other (reluctant) keep argues that (1) the article should be kept at least temporarily because the AfD is an inappropriate attempt to settle a dispute between two editors; and (2) deleting the article would amount to WP:CENSORSHIP.

To these good faith arguments, the majority view would respond that (1) the mere fact of a long-standing editorial dispute does entail that the AfD was not made in good faith for good reasons; (2) there are only 2 relevant POVs here: (a) the mainstream view that MSR as proposed by NASA is safe because appropriate precautions will be undertaken; (b) a minority POV that MSR as proposed by NASA represents a potential existential threat to Planet Earth; (3) the proposed merge is not censorship because the main MSR article still mentions the minority POV.

Whereas we note that the only notable proponents of the latter POV are the International Committee Against Mars Sample Return (whose members are notable mainly for their fringe scientific views) and the author of the article. Therefore, we feel that a 16,000 word explication gives undue weight to what is, in our opinion, a virtually fringe POV, and that a brief mention in the main MSR article is more than adequate. In addition, we note that there already exists an ancillary article on ICAMSR. The minority POV is probably best explored in that article; as an analogy, an article on the dispute over Flat Earth theory would give undue weight to a minority POV, whereas an article on the Flat Earth Society is appropriate.

Therefore, IMHO the WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS seems to be that: (1) a vastly pared down version of the article be merged with the Mars sample return mission main article; (2) more detailed content on the minority POV expressed by ICAMSR be merged with the ICAMSR ancillary article; and (3) that the article Concerns for an early Mars sample return be deleted with a redirect to International Committee Against Mars Sample Return. Warren Platts (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The view that there is a potential for environmental disruption is the official view by NASA, ESA and the PPO. The official reason given for the mission is that the high potential for science value of a MSR can offset a sufficiently low probability of environmental disruption. This makes the science value debate of great importance as this perception of its value is strongly contested by a minority of scientists. The main views (with some distinctions within them) are:
 * * POV that there is no BC risk (Zubrin)
 * * POV that thee is a BC risk but it is manageable (NASA / ESA / Planetary Protection Office)
 * * POV that there is a BC risk but that it is too risky to return to Earth until we can do biohazard testing on Mars or in space (ICAMSR)
 * * POV that a MSR is of great science value (official view and decadal survey)
 * * POV that a MSR is of little science value at this stage and that in situ observation is of much more value (Bada, Page, Dirk Schulze-Makuch and indeed, Zubrin too for the early exploration stage we are in now).
 * The official NASA / ESA / PPO view also holds that the whole mission requires full and open world wide international debate - in view of the potential for environmental disruption to impact on a wider group of countries than the country that launched the mission.
 * The official view from the ESF report is that as the original probability for environmental disruption is thought by experts to be low, then a million fold reduction in this probability makes it low enough to be acceptable. It does not state that the original low probability is totally eliminated by the proposals and indeed agrees that there is still a tiny probability of it happening
 * The mainstream view on BC has not been surveyed. A survey of astrobiologists in 1998 showed considerable variation with many concerned about a MSR and back contamination, and there was no consensus then. I know several astrobiologists and biologists who are concerned so it is certainly not unanimously accepted now (one of them, a friend who is a wikipedean, jokingly offered to intervene in this debate - just a joke to cheer me up, as he knows the wikipedia policy on WP:CANVAS and he heard about the debate through me)
 * The official NASA POV requires extensive treatment as it is not widely known or understood - the official reports found many potential concerns with the proposed MSR and advanced ways of mitigating the risk for most of the concerns. This is in fact the view given most treatment in the article. This needs to be examined in an open public way as part of the international debate that will be needed. The need for an international debate and the legal liabilities and implications I believe is also an important element that needs to be described in separate sections in the article.
 * My own POV on the matter is irrelevant so long as I act responsibly as an editor. I have presented each POV exactly as it is in the source including many I don't personally like. My own POV is of course covered in my column at science20 but is nowhere mentioned in the article as it is a new POV as far as I know, especially what I regard as my own main contribution to the debate in my column - a request for clarity in the probabilities used by all the authors in the debate - is nowhere mentioned in the article.
 * I wonder if it is possible somehow to bring this debate to a wider audience e.g. to the AfD debates on social issues? It is an ethical issue after all, one strongly informed by science, and ethical and social issues typically have no "scientific objective NPOV". My science20 article was filed under Social Sciences >> Science Education and Policy. Robert Walker (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)