Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mars Desert Research Station

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Desert Research Station

[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)

The article contains mostly original research and highly detailed information that would not interest general readers. Information about the station has already been summarized in the Mars Society article with high-quality sources. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station for the same reason as above. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Utah. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dispensing with the "information that would not interest the general reader argument" right away: the general reader is evidently interested in lots of highly specialized stuff, and I hardly think that the details presented in the article break the mold. So, is there duplication with Mars Society? Yes, to a degree. Which suggests that the summary in the latter article could be condensed a bit and a {{Main}} template added. The station easily constitutes a solid enough subject to sustain an article. - The same arguments hold for Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "humans post-Earth" projects are fascinating, cf Biosphere 2 jengod (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a clear keep for both as above. --Bduke (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure how seriously to take this venture. Can't decide whether the facility does proper research or is merely a place for students to play at being astronauts for a couple of weeks. Surely, NASA is researching this area. What is NASA's view on the Mars Society "research" carried out here? The way the article is written, suggests it's a serious research facility, but is it? If it's not, rewriting is required and the article should be draftified. Rupples (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be as it produce lots of research papers. None of the papers are truly influential though. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not the best, but there are
a few good sources. Afd is not for clean-up. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2023 (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.