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 Project Orion (nuclear propulsion). Opinion is evenly split. There's not really a consensus to merge, but it seems a reasonable middle ground in a muddled landscape. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Mars By A-Bomb (film)[edit]

To Mars By A-Bomb (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No assertion of notability. GHits are YT, Wiki, IMDB, Reddit, BBC (who aired it) and the like. 14 interviews in an hour also doesn't seem to give weight to any one individual within the film. MSJapan (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, to my surprise I can't find any real coverage in reliable sources for what sounds like a fascinating BBC doc. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added a couple of decent-looking refs. Search w/o "(film)" I do own a copy of Project Orion by Dyson. Jim1138 (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • "To Mars By A-Bomb". BBC Four Documentaries. 8 February 2006. Retrieved 16 August 2016.
  • Mark R. Hasan (2008). "To Mars By A-Bomb: The Secret History of Project Orion (2003)". KQEK.com. Retrieved 16 August 2016.</ref>
• Keep There are reviews of the documentary and the video is on Christopher Sykes' YouTube channel here It could use more work. Jim1138 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm unable to find reviews in reliable sources either - and that's surprising considering that this seems to be an interesting documentary. I will go with WP:NRVE here and delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I have been able to find a lot more sources, although some quite brief. Blythwood (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There seem to be enough sources though the article could use improvement. - Reidgreg (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on sources: I'm not convinced by the sources. We require sources specifically about the film. As for the sources in the article:

1. The Guardian TV Listing This is essentially a TV listing. Even if I consider this a review, it is a capsule review which still doesn't satisfy WP:NFSOURCES.
2. Listing on BBC - This is clearly not an independent sources. I mean BBC is obviously going to write about it.
3. The Cosmic Compendium: Interstellar Travel - Self Published Book I don't think this is a reliable source considering that this is a self published book (by Lulu.com).
4. KQEK Doesn't satisfy WP:NFSOURCES. This seems to come under WP:USERGENERATED/WP:SPS. The site doesn't seem to be well known and I'm unable to see if they have an editorial process.
5. Achieving the Rare: Robert F. Christy's Journey in Physics and Beyond Reliable but trivial coverage. I looked at the book and there is simply a passing mention of the movie in a sentence about Robert Christy being consulted. Essentially the entire coverage is one sentence.
6. Race, Ethnicity and Nuclear War: Representations of Nuclear Weapons and Post-apocalyptic Worlds Again, the name of the film is simply listed in the book with no other information.

Looking at the sources, I'm not convinced that we should keep this article. I'm willing to however redirect it to an appropriate target such as Project Orion (nuclear propulsion)#Depictions on film. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROMO, as there appears no other reason to include those who were interviewed in the film as "starring" in it in the infobox. Lemongirl942's analysis of sources is compelling. It's possible to redirect to [[Project Orion (nuclear propulsion)#Depictions on film as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code Name Project Orion (film). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep or Merge to Project Orion (nuclear propulsion) - I believe it scrapes b on sources, but not by much. Artw (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It seems bizarre to say the least that what appears to be a well-done, popular documentary has generated little in terms of reliable source coverage. And yet that's what has happened. I agree with the analysis of the sources stated above. If kept, this article couldn't be enhanced with additional information that's sourced properly, and that's a shame. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2016 (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.