Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moongate (book)


 * 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. The article has been substantially rewritten and now sufficiently meets the criteria for inclusion. Nakon 04:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Moongate (book)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A moonshot conspiracy book which says the moon has much higher gravity than NASA admits, and other amazing claims. The article is referenced only to the book. I could not find references or reviews to satisfy Notability (books). It is held by only 21 libraries worldwide, per Worldcat. Edison (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The book notes: "To quote from his favorite TV show, where Hoagland had arrived by 1996 was hardly a place No Man had gone before. William L. Brian II, Oregon-based author of the 1982 book Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program, sketched out a similar planet-shaking, NASA-scamming history of the solar system. Brian set out to build a case (complete with algebraic proofs—and more caution-to-the-wind speculation than Hoagland has ever mustered) for NASA's 'monstrous suppression' of the facts about alien intelligence on the moon. The basis of Brian's cosmic thesis is his belief that NASA is lying when it says the moon's gravity is one-sixth that of the earth (Hoagland disagrees with this assumption). Using calculators too complex to go into here—they're helpfully assembled in appendix B of his book—Brian purports to prove that NASA learned during the 1960s that the moon's gravitational field was actually a whopping 64 percent as strong as the earth's." Discussion about the book's ideas continue are discussed from pages 132–137.  The source notes: "Brian, William L., II. Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program, the NASA-Military Cover-up. Portland, OR: Future Science Research Pub. Co., 1982. As the title suggests, this is a sensationalistic exposé arguing that 'the true circumstances surrounding the Apollo missions and related discoveries were carefully suppressed from the public.' The author claims that far from NASA's space program being a civilian effort as advertised, 'the military had almost complete control over it and...many NASA findings were withheld from the public.' The title of Chapter 10, 'Evidence of Extraterrestrial Interference in the Space Program,' will suggest the highly speculative and tenuous tenor of the book, much of which is quite technical, to boot. Lightly footnoted with references alike to scholarly sources and The National Enquirer, the work should be consulted with great caution by those without a solid grounding in space history and technology."  The article notes: "'Lunaticul' Brian William L. Brian al II-lea, autor al cartii 'Moongate: descoperirile secrete ale programului spatial al SUA', lansata in 1982, isi va face si el aparitia in 'teatrul de razboi' al teoriilor conspirationiste, schitand un peisaj asemanator al lucrurilor, undein. Brian si-a propus sa faca o ancheta referitoare la ascunderea masinata de NASA a inteligentei extraterestre de pe Luna. Baza tezei sale este aceea ca NASA minte atunci cand pretinde ca gravitatia Lunii este de sase ori mai mica decat cea a Pamantului. Astfel, Brian doreste sa demonstreze ca NASA a descoperit, in anii '60, despre campul gravitational selenar ca acesta are, in realitate, 64% din forta celui terestrui. Implicatiile acestei descoperiri sunt, potrivit lui Brian, suficient de infricosatoare incat sa stimuleze o musamalizare a NASA. Daca atractia gravitationala a Lunii ar fi intr-adevar apropiata ca valoare de cea a Pamantului, legea gravitatiei universale a lui Newton ar fi in intregime gresita si fizica conventionala s-ar baza pe o fundatie nesigura. Mai mult, autorul sustine ca o gravitatie puternica a Lunii ar mai implica si existenta unei atmosfere, care ar duce mai departe la posibilitatea existentei vietii, poate chiar a uneia evoluate." Google Translate says: "William L. Brian II, author of 'Moongate discoveries secret US space program', launched in 1982, and he will make an appearance in 'theater of war' conspiracy theories, like sketching a landscape of things, undein. Brian has proposed to make an investigation of NASA hiding extraterrestrial intelligence machine on the Moon. The basis of his thesis is that NASA claims to mind when the moon's gravity is six times smaller than that of the Earth. The Brian wants to demonstrate that NASA discovered in the 60s, about lunar gravitational field that it has, in fact, 64% of the land force. The implications of this discovery are, according to Brian's scary enough to stimulate a cover of NASA. If the gravitational attraction of the moon would be really close in value to that of the Earth, Newton's law of universal gravitation would be entirely wrong and conventional physics would be based on an uncertain foundation. Moreover, the author argues that a strong gravity of the moon would imply the existence of an atmosphere, which would further the possibility of existence of life, perhaps one evolved."  The book notes: "Book 15: Brian, William L. Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program, The NASA-Military Cover-Up. Future Science Research Publishing Co., P.O. Box 06392, Portland, Oregon 97206-0020. Reprint Health Research. A brilliant expose of the NASA-Military cover-up. Beautiful photographs of anomalies on the moon. (See also book 16 below). Study the logistics of the Lunar Module lift-off from the lunar surface. Contains another excellent chapter on the hollow earth. These two chapters by Brian and Cater (above) cover in precis form almost all the arguments detailed in chapter two this book. Brian has also written for Nexus magazine."  The book notes: "That the moon's gravity is one sixth of the earth's has been assumed for centuries, though there is now evidence that this [is] not the case. William L. Brian II, a Nuclear Engineer from Oregon State University investigated what he calls a 'NASA cover-up' in his 1982 book entitled 'Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program, The NASA-Military Cover-Up'. Brian centers his argument for a cover-up on the so-called 'neutral point' between the earth and the moon. This neutral point, and all gravitational bodies have them, is the point where a space vehicle enters the predominant attractive zone of the moon's gravity. It is the region in space where the earth's force of attraction equals the moon's force of attraction..." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Moongate to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * The best sources that establish notability are Jonathan Vankin's book and the NASA source. Cunard (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

<ul><li>Delete per Notability guidelines. A self-published book which few people have read and which has received almost no notable coverage.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Delete The references above essentially amount to citations, not sources about the book. At least one is also published by a very minor publisher (Health Research Books). LaMona (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (weak) Keep appears to meet WP:GNG - topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article - re sources given by Cunard, they dont appear to 'essentially amount to citations' or part of a reading list but do seem to discuss the book in some detail.  Although, it may be better to incorporate the info of this article into another article like Moon landing conspiracy theories as this article is WP:FRINGE? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The NASA article is a review of the book, and the other sources analyze the book's ideas in detail. I agree that WP:GNG is easily met. This article is about the book itself rather the fringe theory espoused by the book, so I don't think a merge is required by WP:FRINGE since the book passes WP:GNG. Cunard (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The problem is, this is not an article about the book. It is just a summary of the book, original research. If there is no info for writing about the book from reliable sources, there is no article. MicroPaLeo (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Mere synopses (with no interpretation) are not original research per MOS:PLOT, which says: "Presenting fictional material from the original work is allowed, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, per WP:PRIMARY, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research. Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work." As I wrote to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change, WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP and there is no deadline. That the article is currently "a summary of the book" is not a valid reason for deletion. The article has the potential to contain secondary analysis (see the sources I provided above):<ol><li>NASA: The book is a "sensationalistic exposé". The "Evidence of Extraterrestrial Interference in the Space Program" chapter indicates the "highly speculative and tenuous tenor of the book, much of which is quite technical". The book is "Lightly footnoted with references alike to scholarly sources and The National Enquirer, the work should be consulted with great caution by those without a solid grounding in space history and technology." This review of the book goes beyond just plot information and is clearly the "significant coverage" required by Notability.</li><li>Sadek Adam's book: The book is "a brilliant expose". It has "beautiful photographs of anomalies on the moon." It has an "excellent chapter on the hollow earth".</li><li>Jonathan Vankin's book: He spends five pages analyzing the book's ideas.</ol> Cunard (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Presenting fictional material from the original work is allowed, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article,
 * The passages are not short, they constitute the entire article. They have no context, because there is none in the article, it is only the plot summary, nothing more. They constitute not only the main portion, but all of the article. As you have supplied this information, may I assume you are now voting to delete? As you point out, there is no deadline to create the article. It can await proper sourcing. Thank you for adding policy information to support my vote.
 * Might I add, if you put as much into the articles as you put into arguing to keep them, they might be Wikipedia articles by this time?MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "It can await proper sourcing." – that statement applies only to BLPs and BLP-related material. For all other articles, Editing policy applies. Cunard (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is from the article "There is no deadline" that you link to above, not about BLPs. Did you read it? Neither did I past the first paragraph which showed me you had not read it :
 * "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established.


 * Wikipedia is not Wikinews and has no need to scoop anyone. Turn this into a strength by working on your article in your userspace or scratchpad until you have the best possible article, fully referenced, a masterpiece of neutrality. And if someone beats you to it, makes that first place in the edit history, so what? Merge in what you have and turn a stub or whatever into a good article. Wikipedia is not a competition either.


 * Above all, creating an article without establishing the basis of the content and its significance is a bad idea. There really are no points for being first; being the author of the best and most neutral content will earn you far greater kudos."
 * (Emphasis added.) MicroPaLeo (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is already in mainspace, so the quote isn't particularly applicable. I have established with the sources I posted above that several reliable sources consider the book significant enough to review and analyze it. Cunard (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - the majority of the so-called references (none of which is in the article and therefore open to challenge) are themselves fringe books of questionable notability. The article is simply an unreferenced re-hash of self-published fringe ideas that almost nobody has shown any interest in. andy (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither the NASA source nor Jonathan Vankin's book (which is published by the reputable publisher Citadel Press) can be credibly claimed to be fringe sources. That some of the other sources may themselves be fringe sources is no reason to disregard these two high quality sources. Cunard (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * I have rewritten the article. I have used only sources from high quality publishers and reputable authors. The rewritten article clearly establishes that the subject has received significant critical attention from several sources. Jonathan Vankin's book in particular provides five pages of analysis about the book that could be mined for further expansion of the article. Cunard (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasonably notable nonsense. We're the place where people look for NPOV material on things like this. Utter impossibility is not a reason for deletion, as long as people publish about it  DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources added by and reasoning of DGG. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I am agreeing with the other "Keepers": notable nonsense. HullIntegrity  \ talk / 13:30, 5 March 2015 (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.