Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial 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 merge to Solar mirror. Sandstein 17:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial moon

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to have been created based on a claim by Chengdu (China) officials that they would put artificial moons into orbit. Does not appear to have been a serious or viable claim then, and nothing has come of it since. Does not meet WP:GNG as all coverage was regarding the initial announcement, no significant coverage since. Article borders on a hoax as it is currently written. Paisarepa (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other artificial moons have been made in the past, I just added in a bit about Russia's attempt to do the same back in 1999 for the same purpose. That got coverage also. Dream Focus 05:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 05:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like a redirect ~~to Solar mirror~~ might be a good option; there is already a section on "Space reflectors for night illumination". Reliable sources usually refer to the Russian experiments as 'orbital mirrors', calling them 'artificial moons' generally only when they are mentioned in articles about this Chinese announcement. Paisarepa (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Solar mirror per Paisarepa. It doesn't require a separate article at this point. (If someone were to park the Death Star in orbit, then we could reconsider it.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination's claim that this is not serious is false because this has already been done – see the Moonlight Batteries of WW2, for example. Back in the 16th century, Shakespeare made extensive use of the moon as a theme, including the hapless efforts of Robin Starveling, who attempts to portray the moon with a lanthorn. I myself even have a replica moon lamp on my desk here. Such other techniques do not use solar mirrors and so that's not an appropriate merge target for this broad topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A broad topic article has to have a single primary topic. An article attempting to join solar mirrors, a military spotlight unit, a humorous scene in a play, and your desk lamp would be orders of magnitude too scattered and disconnected. See the expert test.

It passes the expert test because these are all representations or simulations of the moon in some way and so the expert would be a cultural selenologist – the sort of person who would write a general source like Depictions of the Moon in Western Visual Culture. What WP:BROAD is talking about is the issue of homonyms – totally unrelated topics such as this or that. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subjects you listed are absolutely not a 'single primary topic' as required regardless of how you try to construe WP:BROAD. Further, your argument is a straw man. Those subjects are not part of the article, nor would any reasonable editor seriously consider adding them. You're arguing for an article that does not and will never exist, rather than the article that is actually the subject of this discussion. Paisarepa (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Solar_mirror#Space_reflectors_for_night_illumination. Wikipedia already covers this topic there, and the article as it stands is a pretty poor quality stub. Diluting content is seldom a good idea, particularly when there is already so little of it. Reyk _YO! 09:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Solar_mirror#Space_reflectors_for_night_illumination as per Clarityfriend and Reyk. Already covered, and that article's section can be expanded. Not to mention calling these artificial moons is less specific than their actual purpose.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the reliable sources which exist the subjects meets our GNG. Additionally, the article solar mirrors is not an appropriate merge target. Lightburst (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you go into more detail on these sources that show it meets WP:GNG? All the sources I can find are based on the announcement of a single solar mirror project that appears to have never made it off the drawing board and has not seen any significant coverage since. There is coverage of other solar mirrors but those are typically not referred to as 'artificial moons' in reliable sources, and if coverage of other solar mirrors is the claim to notability then this is a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK, further justifying a merge/redirect. Paisarepa (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Solar_mirror#Space_reflectors_for_night_illumination. Nowhere in reliable sources are these things refereed to as "artificial moons" and what are, solar mirrors for light illumination, is already covered in the solar mirror article. So this is an extremely pointless content fork. Also, it's completely ridiculous to argue that the article should be kept because some random niche scientific discipline considers every single earth bound thing that gives out light to be an "artificial moon." Maybe someone somewhere was like "hey, the moon glows, and this glows. So this is an "artificial moon", but that's no excuse to keep an article that fails the notability guidelines and is a completely redundant content fork anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Solar mirror#Space reflectors for night illumination. There is not much on the actual topic of this article aside from the initial reports on its announcement and development, so there is no reason for this to be split off from the article that covers this kind of project. The idea that this should be kept because there are a bunch of completely unrelated things that can also be referred to as an "artificial moon" has absolutely no bearing on this discussion, because that proposed article does not exist, and thus is not the article that is under consideration in this discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. That seems to be the subject. Looking at the sourcing of the future artificial moon (WP:CRYSTAL may apply btw), it is still an object with "reflective coating that deflects sunlight to the Earth". That seems sufficiently close to the solar mirror content that it's not necessary to retain something about what right now are just plans. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most content to Solar mirror#Space reflectors for night illumination, but redirect title to satellite. Clearly an interesting topic, but the original concept appears to simply be satellites, with space reflectors a later development. And indeed, the Death Star wasn't a solar reflector... Montanabw^(talk) 17:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree regarding the redirect to satellite. Using the term to refer to solar mirrors is not common in reliable sources except during the short period of time immediately following the announcement of the Chinese project. Paisarepa 04:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Solar mirror which already covers space reflectors. –dlthewave ☎ 18:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it be possible for an admin to SNOW MERGE this since it has 8 merge votes and only three keeps? I highly doubt it's going to be kept at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has significant coverage for gng and i have added that it may not be possible with the proposed design. Can add more if the article is not deleted --Investigatory (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
also given that the moons may be kept in place by rocket thrusters it wouldnt be a sattelite then so this is a novel concept under development. --Investigatory (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be deleted on WP:TOSOON grounds then. Since Wikipedia doesn't usually have articles about a product if it's still a "novel concept" that hasn't been created yet. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The American space agency's website uses this term. Googling site:NASA.gov "Artificial moon" reveals ample results. [1] The article is different than it was at the start of this AFD. It list the various things that could be called an artificial moon and links to them, along with valid information. Dream Focus 12:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you say the results on "various things" (most of them seem to about the international space station), when this article isn't about "various things." Its abour objects that reflect lught. Not the international space station. Otherwise, just put a brief mention in the article about the space station that it was called an artificial moon. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and the point of an article isn't to be a list of every obscure thing that might have gone by a certain name. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On first page results of that search of nasa.gov, 'artificial moon' refers to: 1. Mir, 2. Sputnik 1, 3. von Braun's proposal for an earth-orbiting base for moon trips, 4. Dawn (spacecraft) which orbits Ceres, 5. the external occulter of a telescope used as an 'artificial moon' to simulate an eclipse for photography, 6. Sputnik again, 7. the International Space Station, 8. synthesized moon rock. None support the definition used in this article ("anything put into orbit to reflect sunlight down to Earth"). Six results make a strong argument for a redirect to satellite and the other two are using the term 'artificial moon' in a very different context (simulated moon for photography, and synthesized moon rock). Paisarepa 20:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. One aspect of it being similar enough to another subject doesn't seem like a good merge reason for me.★Trekker (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.