Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASA Watch

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. Wifione ^Message 09:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NASA Watch

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

This article is an odd duck, seemingly more about Keith Cowing than the site itself, and expressing no real notability for either. If text solely about Cowing and POVs were removed, I'm afraid there would only be two or three sentences left. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possible merge to a new article titled "Keith Cowing", if consensus is to do so. Numerous reliable sources pass WP:GNG for stated new article, and some refer to NASA Watch specifically. This is not an exhaustive list, just links that took about twenty seconds to find:

Martin, James (July 23, 2010)."Dennis Wingo and Keith Cowing." Cnet News. Accessed November 2011.
(October 9, 2009). "LCROSS: Keith Cowing on PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer." NASA Lunar Science Institute. Accessed November 2011.
Fearon, Peter (March 22, 2007). "NASA Shutters Ideas Factory." Newser.com. Accessed November 2011.
(May 28, 2010.) "Keith Cowing: Famous Hacks at NASA." Huffington Post. Accessed November 2011.

Also, from the article:

New Moon Rising Publisher: Collector's Guide Publishing Inc; Bk & DVD edition (July 1, 2004) ISBN 1-894959-12-4

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also, simply clicking on the Google news link above provides access to articles such as this. Perhaps this nomination to delete is based upon references within the article, rather than the availability of reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] He has 13 search results on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 22:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the Wiki hits are irrelevant. So is the sheer number of hits; there need to be identifiable hits about the subject, not just mentioning it. That's part of substantial coverage – it must be non-trivial and we should avoid self-publications, interviews, and the like where the subject just talks about itself. Looking at the twenty second research results, there's a reliable source problem: "NASA Shutters Ideas Factory." doesn't even mention NASA Watch. And neither does "Keith Cowing: Famous Hacks at NASA.". Am I missing something? This seems to have happened earlier in discussing Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show... Also, Cnet and Huffington are questionable, have been discussed lots without consensus at WP:RSN, and alone probably shouldn't form the basis of notability. Even with those, I'm not convinced that's significant coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 06:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to his comments about there being an article on the guy, nothing more. Good place to start searching for information already found about him. NASA Watch is notable enough on its own though. Dream Focus 16:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The guy" again. Trying to obviate a deletion discussion about this subject by discussing someone whose article doesn't exist and is not up for deletion? Stay on topic. "The guy" is relevant to the subject but not to this conversation. You don't have to discuss here if you think an article ought to be created. Be bold and create it. JFHJr (㊟) 20:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the Google news archive link at the top of the AFD. Hundreds of results. Major news organizations quote from them. Dream Focus 22:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:ORG; WP:GOV is also helpful here. There's no significant coverage about the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 06:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's an entire newspaper article, contrary to the above statement: Record-Journal - Dec 12, 1999. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – OK, that's one that's actually about the subject. Saw it when you offered it above (linked to the first part of the article). One article isn't substantial coverage, and just a few of them wouldn't be, either. Care to strike out the references you identified above that don't even mention this subject? JFHJr (㊟) 21:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – JFHJr said it well. However, if (sourced) material is created at a new Keith Cowing article, I would favor a redirect. Neutrality^talk 19:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a lack of significant coverage about the article's topic in multiple independent and reliable sources. I agree with the previous !vote about a potential future redirect, though. Yaksar (let's chat) 22:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by reliable independent third party sources, or redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Northamerica1000 has created a Keith Cowing article, but appears to have copy/pasted the last three real paragraphs from the NASA Watch article, all unsourced. Rather feel like I should nominate that for deletion as well. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Feel free to edit the new Keith Cowing article. Judging from the number of reliable sources in the article and available for the topic, however, nominating it for deletion upon your basis wouldn't be very functional toward building a digital encyclopedia. Perhaps at least consider adding more inline citations instead. Per WP:PRESERVE editing policy, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary."Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my problem isn't that the article exists, just that material from one article was copied to another without attribution, which is a big no-no. I would suggest removing those copied paragraphs, and any material that seems truly useful to this new article can be rewritten from scratch with proper citations. Getting rid of those random citations should be a priority: any citation that isn't attached to a specific statement does no one any good. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more inline citations to the Keith Cowing article. Rather than "getting rid" of text, why not WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM by doing research and adding inline citations as I've performed? Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to source all content if you're writing a BLP. Finding cites to already extant uncited material runs an increased risk of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, unless by adding cites you mean correcting it as you go also. That's like writing the article for you. If you're the proponent of the article, especially its creator, you have the burden of doing it right and not leaving egregious problems to fix. You're clearly capable. Again, let's stay on track, vote and comment on NASA Watch here. JFHJr (㊟) 15:37, 16 November 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.