Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon2.0

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete/redirect. It seems clear that this software is not notable unto itself, while the broader subject of the Google Lunar X Prize is. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moon2.0

[edit]
Moon2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTABILITY A WP:PROMO article about a piece of software written by User:Tristancho -- the same name as one of the software authors. Searching for "Moon2.0" and programmer name gets less than 80 ghits, including various posts by him; nothing that reaches the point of notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working in the Moon2.0 article that is not only a piece of software; it is about the return of manned flight to the Moon. I think it is important to introduce the tools to achive such a goal. There is few publications about this concept. --Tristancho (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Above editor added material on the Google X-prize effort - which already has its own page - and a few sections which are one sentence or less. And then there's the full paragraph promoting your software and yourself. It now comes up as WP:PROMO with a piece of parsley on the side. I'm glad that your proud enough of your own software that you feel it is a vital tool; however, your pride does not make it notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am expanding the article's issues. Open colaboration issue is done for an initial guess. I need to complete the other three issues before go in deeper with this one. It is not easy to find good references for this issue. Still I have a lot to learn about Wikipedia rules and standards.--Tristancho (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google actually seems to give a few more hits than previously mentioned - 46,700 [1]. There is also the Xprize page [2]. The article is notable, correctly titled and factually accurate. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. The software text from the article should be removed, or a new page for it created Moon 2.0 (software) if notable. If the remaining text is only to do with the competition it should be merged with Google Lunar X Prize or Lunar Lander Challenge. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But the "software text" is the subject of the article... If you remove that, then you change the topic of the whole article. Nolelover It's almost football season! 23:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead is totally about the Xprize project. There is no mention of any software until the second paragraph of "Dedicated tools", which is the only place that the Moon 2.0 software is mentioned, alongside the third paragraph which talks about the software available from thrustcurve.org. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But the editor who wrote this (and who happens to have the same name as the developer of the software) added all that extra material to save it from deletion. It was originally more about the software before he added all that extra material to keep from losing it. Anyway, redirecting is fine - in fact, it should be done anyway since "Moon2.0" is so similar to Moon "2.0". I'm changing my !vote to reflect that. Nolelover It's almost football season! 01:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And it should be noted that the material that has been added to fluff out the WP:PROMO appears to be WP:OR; the "key" points claimed in the intro are sourced to a presentation that bears the Tristancho name. Also, the claim that this is correctly titled is wrong; if it were about the Google term for further exploration, it would be "Moon 2.0", with a space; "Moon2.0" (no space) is the name of the software. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Nole - The Moon 2.0 redirect already exists, so that would be the most sensible choice I think. "Moon 2.0" software = 3 hits in Google for news Chaosdruid (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes -- and while two of those hits are about the Google X-Prize effort, the word "software" only appears in ad boxes around the edges of the pages, not in the article itself. The third, from Italian Rolling Stone, is not about the topic at all (it's got a reference to "Pink Moon 2.0", hence the hit.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think that the term Moon 2.0 should be redirected to Moon2.0 because this article introduces the original source but not the only. The present article is not only a Google initiative but a global effort to back to the Moon and to change the way to explore the space based on the community effort and not only in agencies. Of course I am involved in this effort and because this I have a good position to know well the meaning of this term but far from me. I am only a Wikipedia writer and supporter and a fan of this fantastic term. I try to have global and good references, not only GLXP. --Tristancho (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at the sources used. Reference 1 is a dead link, has been dead since at least the day that this article went live; it seems likely that this ref was cut-and-pasted from somewhere, rather than consulted in the writing of the article. The embedded link is an X-Prize page that does mention "Moon 2.0", with the space, but is not discussing specifically putting a manned base on the moon, which this article claims "Moon 2.0" is about. Reference 2, which is now attributed in the text to Gutierrez, bears in it the names Gutierrez and Tristancho equally, and the only mention of moon-2-point-0 type phrasing in it is a dead link to a page for software code. Reference 3 is to an over-a-decade old article that not only doesn't mention Moon 2.0, it doesn't mention the moon, as it's about putting items into orbit. Reference 4 is to a PDF made under "Director: Joshua Tristancho Martínez", and the only invocations are as "Moon2.0 simulator" - the software. Reference 5 is in support of SpaceX, which already has its own page; the article not only doesn't mention Moon 2.0, it doesn't mention "moon". There's [an external link for a site with info on rocket motors. Reference 6 is for an article on the software, "Moon 2.0 Simulator", programmed by Tristancho and Martinez. So all in all, this appears to be Tristancho's documentation of his theories of the future of space exploration, pulling other references in to support his original research, and pushing his software as being particularly worthy of note. Tristancho, I do hope you succeed in helping establish a manned, womaned, and puppied base on the moon, and I encourage you to spread your ideas far and wide to achieve those goals... but a Wikipedia article is not the place for you to do so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was started with few sentences related to the current meaning and then I have got a problem with a reference format. I was unable to improve this article before the Nat Gertler comment that said that this article is about a piece of software which in fact it is not. My initial focus on this concept was to use the moon-20 software to illustrate the key points by putting examples of different scopes: Propellant, Launchers, Trajectories, Hovers, Rovers, etc. moon-20 is a free and open tool to implement the Moon2.0 concept. No one have got direct benefit form it; is the community who has the benefit to keep the quality without paying. I never knowed that this was considered WP:PROMO in US-Wikipedia and then I changed the focus (Not the meaning) in order to follow US-Wikipedia standards and people opinion. There is no need to make a new article about "Moon2.0 software" if it is not notable. So, I based the article in Jordi's ideas that also reflect the concept of Moon2.0. To write a good article takes time and community effort. --Tristancho (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is to talk about the term "Moon 2.0" or "Moon2.0", you've provided no verifiable source to support even that it means what you say it means ("Back to the Moon is the meaning of Moon2.0, a try to establish a permanent manned base on the Moon.") If this article is to demonstrate the ideas of Jordi and/or you, we lack the reliable sources to indicate that these ideas are notable and thus worthy of a Wikipedia article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nat Gertler for your corrections. --Tristancho (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at the links you've added - there's a link to the page for your software, an article about the X Prize, which doesn't discuss manned bases, a link to a page that uses "Moon 2.0" but again doesn't talk about manned bases as the goal, a Huffpo blog entry from the guy behind the X Prize, using the term "Moon 2.0" but not saying that it has anything specifically to do with manned bases, an X Prize page which again doesn't have the term referring to manned bases, an X Prize blog entry, same limitation, an X Prize press release which does suggest a permanent base but says nothing about it being manned, and a personal blog entry with what appears to be someone's loose notes on a talk. Far from establishing what you're claiming as the base of this article, this collection of links establishes the inaccuracy of the claim you're now building the article around. There's enough here that one might mention the phrase "Moon 2.0" within the X Prize article, but the way the term is most commonly used is not even how it is being used to justify this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article doesn't seem to know what it is about. Look at the current intro:

The term Moon2.0 or Moon 2.0 was proposed by Google related to the so called Google Lunar X-Prize. Back to the Moon is the meaning of Moon 2.0, a try to establish a permanent manned base on the Moon. This contest was born under an open participation around the world. Also Moon 2.0 is the meaning of a New Era of Space Exploration.

What does this mean? Should it be a redirect to Google Lunar X Prize? Should it be a redirect to Moon#Current_era:_1990.E2.80.93present? Or is it meant to be an article simply about the meaning of the word? I'm not clear from the current content what this is supposed to be.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the software is the primary subject of the article. However the editor, who happens to have the same name as the software's developer, added a whole lotta other stuff to save it from deletion. The software clearly isn't notable but the name "Moon2.0" is so alike to the term Moon 2.0, that this should probably be a redirect there. Nolelover It's almost football season! 19:16, 18 March 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moon2.0&oldid=1171433907"