Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mothers in space

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 keep. There is no consensus to delete, therefore default keep. Merging, renaming etc. may be options. Tone 17:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mothers in space[edit]

Mothers in space (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)

Not a WP:NOTABLE concept Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, an extremely encyclopedic topic. Fotaun (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of independent reliable sources that are specifically about the topic of "mothers in space" as opposed to "here are some female astronauts who have children". Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article is a muddled essay that would interest few people. The common thread is supposed to be mothers in space, but it isn't! Valentina Tereshkova had her first child a year after her space flight, Christa McAuliffe never reached space and Owen K. Garriott is definitely not a "Mother in Space". The article mentions childless wifes and adult children, but the subject "Pregnancy in space" is better covered by Sex in space. The trivial information "Cady Coleman spent Mother's day in orbit" exceeds the scope of any reasonable encyclopedic treatment. The content belongs to a non-Wikipedian "Moms in Space" website. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I was the one who put a notability warning originally on the article but Fotaun's subsequent edits have met the threshold for a minimum quantity of sources to establish that the article can be encyclopedic secondary sources on mothers in space as a topic rather than as a "list of X in Y" as I was originally worried. Boleyn have you seen the current article with the post-afd edits? Rolf H Nelson (talk) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unsure, looking harder at notability guidelines I can see arguments both ways. The Time magazine article is the only ref I'm 100% sure isn't self-promotional or fluff. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jerry Pepsi and Necessary Evil - some of the examples don't fit with the topic. Green Giant (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The weak examples can be weeded out, so that should not sink a worthwhile topic. Fotaun (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weed out the weak examples and you are left with enough material for a possible section in List of female astronauts but not enough to form a separate article. The first sentence is a clear example of what is wrong with the whole article. It states "Mothers in space are females with offspring in outer space, typically Earth orbit". To me, that could be one of a number of scenarios; for example it could just as easily mean females whose children are in outer space, which would be evidently untrue because there are no children in space. Nothing in the article clarifies why it is notable enough to warrant an article. What precisely is so notable about "mothers in space". Is it the fact that they have left children behind on Earth? There are male astronauts who have left behind children on Earth too. Are these women carrying out motherly duties in space? Obviously they will communicate regularly with their families but so will the male astronauts. If you could point out a group of women who have given birth in space, or raised children aboard a space station, then it might become a notable topic. As it stands the article is futilely trying to link a number of noteworthy strands but these strands would be better served in other articles. Green Giant (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the proffered source, a book called Space Oddities: Women and Outer Space in Popular Film and Culture, 1960-2000, is about works of fiction. Any discussion of the actual real-world topic of "mothers in space" is limited to a few paragraphs (about one specific mother who tragically did not reach space) and the work itself is not substantially about the subject of "mothers in space". Even if we accepted this source, which we should not, WP:GNG requires multiple independent reliable sources that are substantially about the subject. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That book is not just about works of fiction, and the discussion you point out is a valid contribution to the topic. Fotaun (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a "valid contribution" whatever that means doesn't change the fact that the proffered source does not help to establish the notability of the subject " mothers in space" because the book is not substantially about the subject " mothers in space". Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book doesn't need to be about the topic of the article, see WP:GNG guidelines on what counts as significant coverage: "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well again, the coverage in that source is not about "mothers in space". It's about one specific mother who never made it into space. It does not speak to the broader topic. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree this article needs a better title and lead section to loosen up the scope a little more to include all subjects related to motherhood and space, not just mothers who have been in space, but that's a trivial content issue not reason to delete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so where are the sources that would support this hypothetical motherhood and space article? "So and so was in space and had kids too" and "So and so spent Mothers Day in space" doesn't cut it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there are few sources that talk about this topic in a general sense, there are enough on individual cases to show this is a topic that is often discussed. It's a good idea for an article and precisely the sort of thing Wikipedia is lacking in due to WP:SYSTEMIC bias issues. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? This discussion shows systemic bias against...what exactly? Be specific in backing your accusation against the people favoring deletion in good faith. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, see WP:SYSTEMIC - it discusses how topics of interest to woman receive less coverage and support due to the well known Gender Gap across all of the WikiMedia projects. That doesn't mean voting delete in this AfD means you are personally biased, vote for whatever reason you want. The Gender Gap and SYSTEMIC is not a bad faith accusation. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way to rectify the gender gap is to create reliably sourced articles about notable topics, not keep poorly sourced articles about non-notable topics. Addressing the gender gap doesn't override notability guidelines. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a notable topic that is reliably sourced. (That it fills a gender gap = bonus.) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that the provided sources are not about the topic of "mothers in space". They're about "baby mice in space died" and "Christa McAuliffe had kids (but she died without getting into space)" and "One mother spent Mother's Day in space and this one time two of the four women on one space mission had kids but the other two didn't". No sources on for instance actually mothering in space. By definition a topic is not notable unless it is covered in multiple independent reliable sources and the specific subject "mothers in space" is not. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic of mothers and space is covered in multiple reliable sources. Your requirement that the sources say "mothers in space" (the article title) or that it be a general treatment (versus specific instances and issues) is not part of the notability guideline, or any guideline. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there are sources that mention that there are women who went to space who happened to be mothers at the time, which is not the same thing. And yes, the general notability guideline does mandate that there be significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Does the exact phrase "mothers in space" have to appear? No, and I never said that it did (although one would think that a source offering significant coverage of mothers in space would include the exact phrase at least once). But the subject does, again, need to be covered directly and in detail. Not "this is a mother who went to space, and this is another mother who went to space, and here's a mother who didn't make it into space. Also a bunch of baby rats died." Jerry Pepsi (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that for GNG, "significant" is not a mathematical count of words, it's if there is usable information to write an article with. One sentence can be significant. We'd have to go through every source to determine and fortunately there are a lot of sources to look at. So the idea that every source here is a trivial mention - plus I'm seeing others in Google Books - seems hard to believe (in fact I'm seeing more than trivial coverage in some sources). I'm beginning to think this article would be better focused on children and space, with a sub-section on mothers, sort of the same thing since mothers have children by definition. There are unambiguously many sources that discuss children and space for example. I'd be happy to rename the article and refocus it on children, and maybe trim out some of the motherhood material that is too tangential. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chapter that you refer to appears to be a very speculative discussion which assumes that there might be children in space by the middle of the century. The introduction seems to waffle on about flight and space travel but seems woefully short on the topic of children in space. The bulk of the chapter is not available so I cannot speculate on whether it covers the topic on greater detail. Thus far, it does not strike me as a particularly encyclopedic topic, indeed it seems very WP:CRYSTALBALL-ish. Equally it would be wrong to dismiss this if it is covered elsewhere, so could you list other texts that cover this area? Green Giant (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't strawman one example. Suggest do some google searches on (eg. children space) to see the abundant and varied material on this topic, both future speculations and more earth bound concerns (education, literature etc). Again, it is a general treatment and can cover a wide range of issues and subjects. We have many other general "in space" articles see Template:Inspace, there is precedent for general treatments of space topics. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is only saying the other stuff sets a precedent for a general treatment of topic, not as reason for having the topic. Fotaun (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, Green Cardamom, so your answer is ... just do a Google search and it will magically appear. You gave us one example and I pointed out the weaknesses, but that does not mean I have dismissed the idea completely. The point I was trying to make is - what were the other sources that convinced you that it is a viable topic? I don't want to dig through pages of Google searches filled with unrelated links like a youtube video and a PDF promoting a neologism. Bearing in mind that it is you who is proposing such material, the onus is on you, not me, to prove that it is a viable topic. Green Giant (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My proposal is based on common sense and a couple basic Google Books searches that confirmed there are various sources on this topic. Which sources are used and how can't be determined until actual text is added to the article, and since the article is currently being expanded by another editor, and this AfD indeterminate, I have no immediate plans to expand or change the article until there is clearer consensus on direction. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Significant" does not mean "there is usable information to write an article with" and a single sentence is pretty much the definition of "trivial mention". From GNG footnote 1: "The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.") is plainly trivial." A single sentence source may certainly be used in an article and indeed that single sentence may provide an important detail that isn't found elsewhere. However, "important" does not equal "significant" in terms of notability guidelines. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense, but the rules don't differentiate between "important" and "significant" coverage. Further, significant coverage does mean usable for writing an article, covered in the "why we have this" section of the guidelines. If you are going to say these sources are trivial, you have not done a proper accounting, only making edited and honestly non-neutral paraphrases of certain sources. Maybe the closing admin will be convinced by those paraphrases, we will see. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there is a difference between "important" and "significant" because the word "important" does not appear in the guideline. I spoke of an individual fact within a source as possibly being "important", not whether or not a source was "important" because "important" is not an element of the notability guideline. And no, "significant" does not mean "usable for writing an article". It means that the source "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Not really sure where the stumbling block is for you here. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot happened to the article since it was nominated, and since the early comments. Fotaun (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you continuing to work and improve the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bewildering as it may seem, it looks like there are more than enough sources to meet WP:GNG. I am a bit concerned that the article seems to mix the concept of being a mother already and then going in space with that of conceiving, giving birth and raising offspring while already in space -these seem two different things to me. However this has nothing to do with deletion. --cyclopiaspeak! 13:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. This concept as a concept has not received significant coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody denies the fact that some astronauts became mothers before they flew in space. But if you read Wikipedia:No original research, you can see that it is not enough to find sources at random to back up your essay. You're riding coattails.
Secondly your sources are very sloppy! As mentioned before Christa McAuliffe never went into space, so she wasn't a "Mother in Space". You put six references to carpet-bomb the readers (>>...in the Challenger Disaster.[19][20][21][22][20][21]<<) but there are TWO doubles! Challenger exploded 73 seconds into the flight and the crew compartment reached an altitude of approximately 65,000 feet (roughly 20 km). That's not space by Wiki standard - not even by a long shot! --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you have focused one small part of the article, but it is that source not us that links Christa McAuliffe with the topic of mothers in space. Fotaun (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Challenger, she was an astronaut on a space mission who was killed in the line of that duty. Article titles are placeholders not literal straight jackets, the scope of the article is defined by the article itself, in the lead section usually, and can be whatever we decide - article scope is not OR it's an editorial decision. This is a general topic covering many aspects, past, present and future, space and earth. It is not OR to have a general treatment on a topic that is covered in many sources in specific cases. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even in its current state, with extra sources, the lead and the first section still have a "gee-whiz, look at that, an astronaut mom"-feel. The part that is different is the section called "Scientific study of motherhood in space", which is more encyclopaedic. If I understand your last statement correctly, I think the current article is not a general treatment of the topic but there is a way to make it more encyclopaedic. Move past the narrow focus on mothers and make it into an article about families in space, the effects of long-term separation of astronauts (male and female) from their spouses and children, the possible ramifications, ethics and challenges of raising children in space, the possible effects of radiation on human reproduction etc. As long as it is sourced properly, I can see such an article as a spin-off from space colonization and a number of related articles. Green Giant (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Women in space/women astronauts is a notable topic[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] but doesn't have a general article (there are lists of women astronauts, etc); I'd suggest a merge if it did, or maybe rename and edit this to the more obviously notable topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to either Women in space or women astronauts, as proposed above in Colapeninsula's "Comment". Mothers in space does not have sufficient info about the narrow topic of "mothers", as noted above, and should be Deleted if not renamed. But the article could be quite comprehensively sourced with the slight clarification of Women/female humans in space, which have definitely received much press and are notable as a standalone topic. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2013 (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/Mothers_in_space&oldid=1086363507"