Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First woman on the Moon


 * 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 no consensus. Most people do not want to delete the article, but there is a split of opinion whether to keep or redirect, and if the latter, where to redirect to. Suggest either starting a discussion on the talk page or following the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

First woman on the Moon

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article created by a user who has been blocked for disruptive editing. Subject in question is theoretical as it hasn't happened yet, so at a minimum falls foul of WP:TOOSOON, though i'd also suggest WP:CRYSTAL applies as anything on the subject at this time is merely speculative. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to either Moon_landing or List of female spacefarers; this hypothetical/future likelihood can briefly mentioned there. Neutralitytalk 20:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems easy to find sources for the topic such as Gender, Sexuality, and Space Culture. Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. "  See also WP:BITE. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect as the topic is not sufficiently independent of Moon landing. But searching using this title should be possible. Creator being blocked is not relevant as block not due to this page. The existence of the book mentioned above supports a broader topic, Women in space, which already exists. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The point about the book is that it spends several pages specifically discussing "the first woman on the Moon". That was mainly an artwork but they take the opportunity to discuss other aspects.  And this is just a quick example.  As the article is new, reasonable time should be allowed for development, especially as the prime author has been blocked for several days and so is unable to comment here. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect as per Neutrality or Graeme. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect, any number of relevant target articles to choose from, eg. Women in space. The little that there is to say about the subject (for now, at least) can be easily covered in an existing article rather than creating an unnecessary fork at this stage (obviously that can be revisited if and when there is enough substance to justify a separate article). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge There's almost no content here, and what there is does not identify the first woman on the moon. It would be worth mentioning the gender distribution of the trainees in the Artemis Program article, but I don't think even a redirect with this title is warranted.PopePompus (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - there’s really nothing here, and it is already mentioned at lead of Artemis program and noted at List of missions to the moon. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Women in space. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as the event is more imminent than the next summer Olympic competition, and has already invested far more money that that event toward accomplishing this historic feat. It would be highly inappropriate in the context of WP:WHIST to subhead this world's first event under a compilation article. Likewise, the content is widely available and updating frequently today as astronauts train, applications are sought, international negotioations ensue, and funding appropriations debate in Congress.
 * The content within the article is lacking, but not due to scant sources as Andrew pointed out. It is due only to a lack of WP:ATD.


 * A global space race is in progress as we speak, and this time we are going up to stay. It will not be possible to have colonies in the solar system if we continue a male-only space program, thus, discovering the unique benefits and solving the unique challenges of both genders in extended space environments will mark an historic turning point in human exploration. If Artemis fails to deliver the first woman to the moon, the next attempt will bear the same weight in history. This topic survives even if Artemis fails; The concepts should not be bundled haphazardly together as if the riddle of women in extended space voyages were a uniquely "Artemis" or even "American" ambition WP:NOTMERGE; the historic event will serve all of humanity, and thus belongs to all of humanity.
 * RE: WP:TOOSOON Does not apply. The notability criteria WP:NRVE is met: "the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. Likewise, the topic has invested billions of dollars to date since Directive 1 four years ago (WP:SUSTAINED).

--Frobozz1 (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be kinda silly for the US to enter a race to the moon that it won more than 50 years ago. The excitement for manned spaceflight today is just not in any way comparable to what it was in the 60s. I'm certain that if NASA ever sends another manned mission to the moon's surface, the crew will include a woman, because it would be politically impossible for them to send an all male crew. But it's easy for NASA to claim Artemis will put the first woman on the moon; the Constellation program shows what may happen.PopePompus (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not a race to the moon. It is a race to establish a permanent off-planet facility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This page averages 13 views per day @ Graeme Bartlett - lunar missions being manned vs. accommodating both genders are sufficiently different subjects, more so than the Female president of the United States in popular culture which only answers a political question. This title may attach to any nation as applications are accepted worldwide next month, and it answers long-sought physiological questions about extended space exploration with astronauts having uniquely female attributes.

@ Markbassett & DoubleGrazing - much more has been added since these votes. News is moving quickly in the new space race. The number of possible MERGE/REDIRECT candidates is too large and too indeterminate to justify subheading this quantity of content separately. The title is not hypothetical @Neutrality, it is actively sought internationally while the eventual owner of the title is too speculative to make a merge/redirect decision: Women in space, List of missions to the moon, Artemis program, Directive 1, Moon_landing, List of female spacefarers, Astronaut, Space policy of the Donald Trump administration, Or the page of any of the individual astronauts actively applying for the title. While the title will one day soon be awarded to a named astronaut in a certain country, a merge/redirect decision today lacks a clear primary Topic area, and merging is WP:TOOSOON

@ PopePompus’ argument implies the gender mix is only a political question with strictly cultural implications, and while this is significant WP:WHIST content the argument ignores the important medical, psychological, and logistical feats required to achieve this goal, all of which will make discoveries that set scientific precedent for space exploration throughout our solar system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.197.231 (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Much of the content added doesn't really have relevance specifically to the article title and would surely be more appropriate within Women in space? It seems to have been filled up to look like a more substantial article with the content doesn't really relate to a female lunar mission. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect Women in space is a more appropriate place for such discussion than a stand-alone page. Reywas92Talk 18:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, not sure what others are reading but the medical objectives like osteoporosis are most definitely a concern for women - not just generally in space, but specifically extended voyages. The examples come directly from NASA's "Human Research Roadmap" as well, which has dozens more gender-specific and lunar-mission-specific science goals which all belong here. Besides, where would you subhead a legislative initiative within an article that is supposed to cover "women in space"? The topic doesn't have a winner yet. It would be like subheading some new and uncompleted Olympic event page under the Olympic medalists page for the 2024 Olympics. You sort of go there looking for names, not probable medalists?
 * That is true about osteoporosis, but it has nothing to do with the moon in particular. It has nothing to do with the first woman in particular. Your argument is a basis for coverint he topic in women in space, it is not a basis for this particular article about one unannounced woman. I have removed content irrelevant to this title.
 * Keep If the law has been passed and funded as the article states I dont think WP:CRYSTAL applies. Spudlace (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The author of the article seems to have trouble with reading comprehension. There is no "First woman on the moon" law. There are budget appropriations that fund a return to the moon, and NASA intends to include a woman in that initiative. There is no basis whatsoever to have an article on this title in particlar when the notable topic and the law are about lunar missions in general. I have removed the false assertion that HR133 says anything about women astronauts, as well as the false suggestion that the application to apply is relevant, when in fact it's for the ESA which is not going to the moon. Reywas92Talk 06:40, 27 February 2021 (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.