Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mars race


 * 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. The merge discussion can continue on the article's talk page, but so far no consensus has formed in favor of that (or really any) result. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Mars race

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnecessary article based on the notion that there is a "real-life space competition" called the Mars race, rather than a casual vernacular usage. Much of the article is speculation based on low grade references - e.g. Virgin Galactic's "interest" in providing a service to Mars comes from a single casual remark by a Virgin executive - there's no evidence of any company policy or activity. Blue Origin "may" be aiming for Mars which "may" give rise to competition. And so on. Speculation, synthesis and original research. Andyjsmith (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Andyjsmith (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Andyjsmith (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Andyjsmith (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not original research since it all comes from the sources. The statements of competition also comes out of the sources, so it isn't synthesis. The speculation comes out of the sources, so it is referenced material. Deletion cannot be based on these rationales, since they are coming out of the references. Deletion should be based on other criteria, not simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That the mass media is speculating on a Mars race is evident from the sources.  Casual Virgin executive? I suppose the founder of Virgin would be an executive, but not "just" an executive. I wouldn't say that the "Christian Science Monitor"  or "Bloomberg" are a low-grade reference, and they are references showing the press is speculating on this topic. This is a business topic, and high quality general news and business news sources are clearly high grade sources.  -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the author; reasoning provided above -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Very messy article (MoS). Hawkeye75   (talk)  01:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If the article is "messy" but the subject is encyclopedic, then the proper action is cleanup, not deletion. —Lowellian (reply) 08:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You try that - the "owner" reverts. Anyway, when cleaned up there's nothing left.Andyjsmith (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not the "owner", rather, your edits seemingly are unreasonable with your edit comments. I left some of your edits. Your claims about MarsOne being a scam is seemingly for the deletion of that article, not relevant to this one. Whether something is a "scam" or not is not related to whether it contributes to a competitive environment or not. Whether something has died or not is not relevant to this article either, since they exist in the history of the competitive environment. Inspiration Mars article still exists, but you deleted the content because it is "dead", which does not mean that it never contributed to the competitive environment. Indeed many "dead" companies and "scams" have greatly impacted business environments, so those are clearly impactful. The crash of 1929 was full of scams, and are clearly relevant. A pyramid scheme brought down the economy of Albania. Studebaker is a dead car company, but is highly relevant to the development of the American car industry. So dead and scam are unreasonable rationales left for removing content that The Guardian itself considered part of this competitive environment. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article talks about Inspiration Mars in the present tense. At best it could be described as moribund. It certainly does not play any active role in the "Mars Race". Nor are any of the other "competitors" paying any atttention to MarsOne. Andyjsmith (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article does not speak of it in the current sense. Did you not see the edits after your PROD nomination? In any case, the historical fact of it participating and being a competitive factor in the market is still there, unless you think Wikipedia is a newspaper and the only thing that should be documented is the current state of the market. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This competition between various entities may be in its early stages, but when it has been covered in thousands of media sources, it certainly is not an "invented" topic as the deletion nomination makes it out to be. —Lowellian (reply) 08:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of a "real-life space competition" called the Mars Race. X-prize, yes. Mars Race, no. Absent that hook, this is just a rehash of the other articles about attempts at Mars. . Andyjsmith (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be implying that a competition needs to be formalized as a "sport" with judges/referees that assign points to decide a winner and award a prize in order to exist, which is absurd. There is no formal judging panel awarding prizes in natural selection or economic markets, arenas where competition is omnipresent. A competition is any contest or rivalry between two or more parties, regardless of whether it is formalized as a contest with prizes officially awarded or not, and when such a competition has thousands of hits in media sources reporting on it, then it clearly exists. —Lowellian (reply) 19:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There was no official "race" in either the Space Race or Race to the Moon either. It was still a real-life geopolitical space competition. Just as most economic and technological races are competitions that re not formalized into "sports". The stock market is a real-life competition without an X-prize at the end, just profits, gains and losses. Just as the race to most South was a competition between explorers and nations to the South Pole, and the one before was for the North Pole, which was neither formalized nor had a prize, but were still races.
 * National Geographic: "race to the pole" -- the race to the South Pole which was not formalized and did not have a prize
 * -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also arms race, such as nuclear arms race and the Cold War nuclear arms race. Which are not formalized with prizes at the end. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no "Race to the Moon" article, only "Space Race".
 * There was a "Race to the Moon" though, in real-life. Exactly what are all these books talking about then? . -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a huge distinction between "competition" (a mass noun with the sense of rivalry) and "a competition" (a count noun referring to an event). By stating that there is a "real-life competition" you are claiming that the Mars Race falls into the second group, which is obviously nonsense. The Space Race was not "a real-life geopolitical space competition" as you state above, but it was "geopolitical competition" without the indefinite article. The X-Prize was a space competition. Andyjsmith (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. There is a distinction between the two forms of the word, but it is not the distinction that you are making. Not requiring any formal judges or prizes applies to both forms of the word. Neither (generalized) "competition" nor (specific) "competitions" require any formal judges or prizes. There are no formal judges or prizes in natural selection or economic markets, but species filling the same niche are both "in competition" and "in a competition" with the others, and sellers of the same product in the same area are also both "in competition" and "in a competition" with the others. —Lowellian (reply) 03:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete – Any content that is compliant with policy is redundant with Exploration of Mars, Human mission to Mars, etc. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with nominator and and editor directly above. Any relevant content should be added to the preexisting Human mission to Mars, or elsewhere. This is an unneeded fork that doesn't help navigation, by arbitrarily splitting off or duplicating certain things in a so-called "race" article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep this is legit - one of the sources is " Are We Losing the Space Race to China?. Space Subcommittee Hearing" - strong source that beats the "casual vernacular usage" argument Seraphim System  ( talk ) 18:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Are we losing the Space Race..." not "Are we losing the Mars Race...". Was Mars even mentioned in the hearing? This is not a "strong source" for the use of the largely invented phrase "Mars race" Andyjsmith (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, 39 times. Mars is mentioned 39 times. Space race to Mars has been used by everyone from National Geographic to the Guardian. The space race currently is the space race to Mars - not to be flippant but what do you think it's about? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In what way is this article not a rather weak and opinionated fork of existing articles? What does it add that's not already covered better elsewhere? Andyjsmith (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The article Space Race correctly or not, seems to be about a historic Cold War conflict between the USSR and USA. This is about a separate issue between China and the United States for Mars. I don't see any other article that covers this. The fact that it needs expansion, does not mean it is not notable. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 23:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge with Human mission to Mars. --pmj (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to accept Merge. Andyjsmith (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have undone your bolding of "merge" in my above comment. Cf. WP:AFD's prohibition on conflicting recommendations. --pmj (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 (c)  21:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per User:Seraphim System and User:Lowellian.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I vote also for keep, as per User:Seraphim System and User:Lowellian.FFA P-16 (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge material into Human mission to Mars. This would make a good conceptual sub-heading in that article; it is too informal to stand on its own.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs)


 * 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.