Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lunarcrete


 * 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. "Uncle G"ed beyond all recognition (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lunarcrete

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Google does not indicate any reliable, third-party sources, thus failing both WP:N and WP:V. A v  N  16:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete clearly WP:NEO, topic already covered at In Situ Resource Utilization. Drawn Some (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I have failed to find any references to it, so it lacks verifiability and notability. Also a "hypothetical" material is getting dangerously close to violating WP:NOTCRYSTAL. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you haven't looked hard enough. Simply looking at the article to see the sources already cited therein would be an easy start.  Beyer wasn't in fact all that hard to find, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At the time I looked there were no citations in the article, so it would not have been an easy start. At the time I posted the above comment there was what purported to be one citation to the Grand Forks Herald, but in fact it was merely a link to the Wikipedia article about the Grand Forks Herald, and did not give any information about lunarcrete, so it would still not have been an easy start. Since the citations now in the article have all been put there by Uncle G after the time of my comment it is surprising he did not realise this. A Google search now for "Lunarcrete Beyer" produces 3 hits. One of these is this Wikipedia article; the second is an out of date link to a web page which no longer contains any reference to lunarcrete; the third is an archived index to the Space Studies Institute blog archives for December, 1985: it establishes that there was once a blog entry on the topic, but it does not give the content of that entry. Thus the actual information obtained about "lunarcrete" from this search is zero. Perhaps there are other ways in which I could have found information about Beyer in connection with lunarcrete: if so it would have been more constructive to say what they are than making such remarks as "Then you haven't looked hard enough". JamesBWatson (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

*very weak Keep There are 3 other refs in GScholar, at, That is probably not quite not enough for notability, but enough to not dismiss it out of hand.A broader search is needed. DGG (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG, how can you say to keep it but then in the next sentence say it is not notable? Are you suggesting that we keep articles that aren't notable because they might be? We're supposed to be deciding that here. Drawn Some (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Xe is very probably suggesting that dismissing something out of hand as a "neologism", when it was in fact an idea thought up and published almost a quarter of a century ago, may well be an unwise course of action. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand: nobody has referred to it as a neologism, let alone suggested dismissing it for that reason. this looks remarkably like a Straw man argument. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Drawn Some used the WP:NEO argument. Fences and windows (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination said it could not be verified, and that was wrong because I verified it. I then said that if my quick search, a search I knew to be inadequate for the subject, found a few possibly not very strong sources, though this was not quite enough for notability yet, there would probably be more,hence the "very weak keep"  And, I see my guess was right, for Uncle G found them. I'm changing to Keep, of course. As he said, I was trying to prevent a rush to delete an article without checking further.   I apologize  for not having done better myself, but it's so easy to nominate for deletion, that i don' t have timeto save properly even when I think it can be done--there were too many other articles. DGG (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per additional refs. 66.43.117.5 (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. More fine work from Uncle G; an example to us all. This would be a case where WP:BEFORE applies. A collective WP:TROUT to all deletion nominators and voters who don't look carefully enough for sources. Fences and windows (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, due to improvements by Uncle G. Wronkiew (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - now much improved into a fine article - well done Uncle G. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2009 (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.