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. Consensus for keeping article based on notability of topic of one-way manned missions to Mars, independent of editing or naming concerns. (non-admin closure) Moogwrench (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mars to Stay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This is a textbook case of WP:COATRACK and WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Mars to Stay is indeed a project aimed to send astronaut to mars. However this article is one covering generic colonization of Mars rather than the Mars to Stay project itself. A quick google search reveal very little sources about the Mars to Stay project, and whatever sources cover it seems mostly to say "look, Mars to Stay is a cool project, it has a Wikipedia page and therefore is notable!" (example), forum posts, or blog posts.

I don't see how this project passes the WP:GNG, or any other notability guidelines out there. Hence, delete, then redirect to Colonization of Mars or Manned missions to Mars. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and trim—this appears to be a main article link from Manned mission to Mars#Mars to Stay (2006), which is too large an article to support a merge. One-way mission proposals have received coverage in the press and elsewhere, so it appears notable in general;[1][2] perhaps a rename is needed? Generic manned mission to Mars material should be aggressively trimmed. Neutrality issues can be dealt with by suitable tagging and presenting a better balance in the Risks section. (For example, it needs to mention the enormous political liability inherent in this proposal.) Regards, RJH (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, but there's really nothing to merge. It's one amongst many proposed manned missions to Mars, and one that didn't get much attention. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Recent coverage of Mars to Stay initiatives will be added to the article (Keith Obermann interview MSNBC, Paul Davies Mars Society Presentation, 380 page book "A One Way Mission to Mars: Colonizing the Red Planet" published in March 2011...); actually quite a bit has been said about Mars to Stay initiatives for over two decades, as noted in the 'Public reception' and 'New York Times op-eds' sections. The blog post mentioned as an "example" of cheerleading was created only a month ago and is not the rationale for this article. "Mars to Stay" is not a particular "project" rather it is a phrase used to refer to one way to stay human mission proposals in general. Within the space community 'Mars to Stay' proposals have been around for two decades. Many different one-way-to-stay human settlement missions have been proposed under 'Mars to Stay' headings; the phrase does not refer to one particular mission or proposal, as evidenced by the various architectures reviewed in the article. Since 'Mars to Stay' has been used widely by space exploration advocates for two decades it is a more appropriate title than more wordy, less clear "One Way Human Missions to Settle Mars" or whatever alternatives one might imagine...which, is probably why "Mars to Stay" has evolved to be the most common idiom popular among Mars settlement advocates when referring to an umbrella of various one way human settlement proposals. Many different "projects" and proposals are mentioned. 'Mars to Stay' is not a single "project," it is a common phrase within the space exploration community used to refer to human Mars settlement missions which do not include robust return trip options, if at all. Mars to Stay is not a particular project, it is a type of humans to Mars mission architecture for settlement without return.Ericmachmer (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic of one-way missions to mars is highly notable. For example, see the book A One Way Mission to Mars: Colonizing the Red Planet. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except this is not an article about one-way missions to Mars, it's one about the Mars to Stay project. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the article is about the general concept of one-way missions to Mars. If the title of the article seems inappropriate or gives undue weight to a particular slogan then this is remedied by an ordinary editing move, not by deletion. Warden (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Warden is correct. This article is about one way missions to Mars. The website you are referring to was apparently created within the last year. It cribbed much of its material directly from this article. In itself of course a website is not even a project, so I'm not even clear as to why it is even mentioned as a rationale for the existence of this article. The point of this article is to summarize one way to Mars proposals in the space exploration community. If the article should be retitled 'One Way to Mars' or 'One Way Missions to Mars' or whatever it is really half a dozen of one and half a dozen of the other -- doesn't seem to matter. The point is, if you think a poorly maintained website like "MarstoStay.com" is for some reason even a legitimate representative of two decades of Mars to Stay thought and that it is the rationale behind this page you are completely mistaken. Please read this article more thoroughly. "MarstoStay.com" is not even mentioned. It is not even referenced in external links because basically it was created, according to WhoIs, less than a year ago. Whether or not someone might want to include a link to it is actually worthwhile to question -- but to think this article is in some way promoting that website, its creators, or whatever specific agenda they may have is just misinformed. In fact, quite the opposite. The website appears to have been created with knowledge of this article and of course advocates a one way mission. Perhaps the site should be mentioned in this article's external links section but in no way was the article 'Mars to Stay' created to promote that website.Ericmachmer (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the Mars to Stay 'Mars to Stay' has been up for over two years without ever eliciting a deletion suggestion. It contains unique, in-depth information on one-way missions to Mars; mentions in public media from NY Times op-eds to Mars Society Conference presentations, television interviews and mainstream books. Most importantly this article does not "cover generic colonization of Mars," which was the original complaint. That is the point of an article devoted to one way missions. It uniquely focuses upon missions for which return is not a goal, with reviews of several specific proposals by noted persons in space exploration from Aldrin to Zubrin to our current NASA admin. Initially a Mars to Stay subsection was proposed for inclusion in the Colonization of Mars article mentioned above, but it quickly became apparent among maintainers of that page the depth and variety of proposals related uniquely to one way missions warranted an independent article. Rather than suggest this article now be collapsed back into an already convoluted general colonization article please present your ideas on how the WP:COATRACK "we've got a wikipedia page" nature of any "proposal" can be "trimmed" as other readers suggest. One way missions are going to be "proposals" by their very nature. It is important though that their public mention and resources for further study be noted here. Again, this is the first time 'Mars to Stay' has ever been suggested for deletion since its inception over two years ago. That should bare some consideration given the tens of thousands of people who have viewed its page without complaint.Ericmachmer (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above Ryuku 22:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mars to Stay is a generic term used to describe a variety of specific proposals to send humans to Mars to begin colonizing it. There is too much information on this to merge it with a general page about colonizing Mars. I created the Mars to Stay website purely to help assist in promoting this idea, not as a specific, seperate project. This article correctly details what 'Mars to Stay' is all about - The variety of proposals to colonize Mars. However, I would appreciate Ericmachmer to reference exactly what information was 'cribbed' from this article, and how the site is 'poorly maintained' as both of those statements are false. The Mars to Stay website does not list the unique content and specific plans that is listed in this article, but instead offers opinion/further reading and a platform to comment and discuss, as a Wikipedia article does not allow for that. The idea that this article could be removed due to the Mars to Stay website is completely contrary to the purpose of that website. Hutchski 01:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Hutchski MarsToStay.com is great…my first impression several months ago was that it used similar language to this article; word-for-word "cribbed" was an incorrect description. Similar terms should be expected and the site does have a tremendous amount of original thought and motivation. It is very valuable -- I overreacted to the suggestion by Headbomb that the purpose of this article was to promote your site. My second impression when revisiting it to respond to Headbomb was much more positive -- I am unsure if this is because the site has been revised since or I'm just no longer surprised to see it. In any case, after more carefully reading MarsToStay.com seems like a very noble endeavor. I hope someone writes up a review of MarsToStay.com for entry in the 'Public mentions' section of this article (a section which is becoming a bit lengthy and perhaps ought to be divided again into separate media/sources, as was the case when NY Times Op-Eds were placed under their own heading).

General criticisms of MarsToStay are common to most enthusiast/promotional websites passing through healthy evolution…this is a quick critique and meant to be constructive: wordiness…run on sentences…colloquial phrases…for example, "it seems"…"we feel"…"enthuse"(?)…"just a few"…"the best we've got"…"to look into"…the 'Why Bother Page' displays overwhelming excessive text, some bold & underlined for unclear reasons…these are minor suggestions for improvement of an already valuable site.

Technical/Design issues: load time ("…loading" displayed for what should be a simple html page? why is this static text site made in Flash????; white text on black background -- difficult to read, dated look; advertisement banner at page bottom (probably not making more than a few pennies per year, if that...why display tacky distractions advertising Capella University, National Car Rental, and Google links?; background image of a blue sky (confusing choice, also makes reading white text difficult over clouds); since pages are in Flash it isn't easy to check if images have been web optimized…that may be why page loads are delayed…?; use of seven different font sizes: menu (tiny), banner (slightly rasterized), subheading, body text, image title (some of which are in bold and underlined even though not hyperlinks); larger than necessary grey menu location banner; cumbersome confusing previous/next buttons at page bottoms; finally…no link to this 'Mars to Stay' wiki article : ) Overall MarstoStay.com is a good site with great spirit and potential -- ought to be mentioned in this article. Ericmachmer (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and feedback. I've taken action on some of your points regarding the clouds on the background, as well as the previous/next buttons and a few other things. I'll consider some of the others for the future. But regarding the load time and flash, the site was built using a web building website (I'm not a web developer). This is also a reason for the design as a template was used.. I really only built the site because I was shocked that it didn't already exist, and doing so could only help promote the idea as I am a big fan of this sort of thing.

I've also now linked this Wikipedia article at the end of the last page on Mars to Stay. Hopefully this should clear up any confusion and ensure that this article does not get removed as both the site and the article are talking about the same thing. Hutchski 19:20, 29 September 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.