![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 August 2018. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I think this content is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. The reason is because the group is cited quite often in news stories about Mars sample return. Readers of those stories may wish to know more about the group cited. Have added a few of the news stories as references. It is a small group of scientists and the news stories I've found so far have all been by or about its director Barry DiGregorio, a science journalist who wrote a book about Gilbert Levin's experiment on Mars. The other scientists have material on the group's website included with their permission. Some of the contributing scientists are notable.
I think it is borderline notable, but enough to have a page in Wikipedia. Am open to suggestions for other ways of dealing with it. For instance, would it be better as a paragraph in a larger article? If so, where? I didn't feel it was appropriate to have a section on it in the article on Concerns for an early Mars sample return. Don't think it fits the criteria for proposal for deletion, at least, not as immediate deletion without discussion, so have removed the tag. Robert Walker ( talk) 08:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Robert: I deleted the last sentence "This is a concern shared with some scientists outside of the group [9][10]" because of the sources you cited, Lederberg expresses concern over back contamination, but doesn't specifically call for any action, as far as I know, and Paige is against MSR, but not because of back contamination concerns, but because he thought (over 10 years ago) that MSR wasn't a cost-effective use of limited funds. Warren Platts ( talk) 21:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This article reads like an advertisement. Do we really need a Wiki article for every website on the web? And I see that the article was once nominated for deletion. I wonder what happened with that... Warren Platts ( talk) 14:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the coverage of this group by CNN and in the book by Arnould are satisfactory for WP:GNG. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 20:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Just realised, coming back to it last para is OR. It's not their stated aim to promote the labelled release interpretation. They just have several pages about it. To say that they promote it, would really need some third party source or citation that says "the ICAMSR promote labelled release" or a statement from their own site that that is their aim. Otherwise seems to me it is OR to say that. And presumably if some future mission were to prove the Viking labelled release experimental results to be caused by non life processes, it wouldn't change their charter, so it is a side issue really.
On the other hand the article doesn't mention their charter at all so needs a brief mention.
So have added short statement of their charter, and removed the last para. It could be added back in again if more neutral in tone so not as an implied criticism of the organization, or if you can find a third party source who make this point as a criticism of the ICAMSR and attribute it to them. The issue I have with it is that it implies a criticism of the ICAMSR - no problem with that - but that the criticism is also attributed to wikipedia itself and is based on a form of OR observing that they discuss Levin's results favourably and also of course Levin being a member, and assuming from that that their aim is to promote his results.
It is natural that they would mention the results and him being a member to have material on the site in favour of his results, but it is OR to conclude from that that that is their aim, to promote Levin's conclusions, especially if not a stated aim. Seems to me entirely possible that they would also publish material by members who are against MSR but critical of Levin's results, e.g. using the modern habitability of Mars research to suggest high probability of life on Mars instead - and just haven't had such material submitted yet.
If you think it should be included, let's discuss it here, and try to come up with a neutral way of saying it. Robert Walker ( talk) 09:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
He is quite possibly their inspiration, but we need a cite to ICAMSR materials saying that, or to some otehr WP:RS saying that about them. Citing Sagan's book written well before ICAMSR was founded does not prove anything about ICAMSR. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 20:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This article should probably be converted to a redir to Mars_sample-return_mission#Potential_for_back_contamination, but since the article creator and primary contributor was just CBAN-ed, it seems appropriate to wait awhile before acting on this. So for time being I'm just posting a note here to maybe get back to. In the meantime, if someone else adopts this article and improves it mightily, great. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
DELETE!!!! - I researched the group and its leader, Barry DiGregorio, and familiar names came up:
I am sure I can dig additional entertaining material, but this is enough. ICAMSR is not notable, not relevant, and definitely not reliable nor influential. Delete this article. Please. Rowan Forest ( talk) 03:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 August 2018. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I think this content is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. The reason is because the group is cited quite often in news stories about Mars sample return. Readers of those stories may wish to know more about the group cited. Have added a few of the news stories as references. It is a small group of scientists and the news stories I've found so far have all been by or about its director Barry DiGregorio, a science journalist who wrote a book about Gilbert Levin's experiment on Mars. The other scientists have material on the group's website included with their permission. Some of the contributing scientists are notable.
I think it is borderline notable, but enough to have a page in Wikipedia. Am open to suggestions for other ways of dealing with it. For instance, would it be better as a paragraph in a larger article? If so, where? I didn't feel it was appropriate to have a section on it in the article on Concerns for an early Mars sample return. Don't think it fits the criteria for proposal for deletion, at least, not as immediate deletion without discussion, so have removed the tag. Robert Walker ( talk) 08:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Robert: I deleted the last sentence "This is a concern shared with some scientists outside of the group [9][10]" because of the sources you cited, Lederberg expresses concern over back contamination, but doesn't specifically call for any action, as far as I know, and Paige is against MSR, but not because of back contamination concerns, but because he thought (over 10 years ago) that MSR wasn't a cost-effective use of limited funds. Warren Platts ( talk) 21:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This article reads like an advertisement. Do we really need a Wiki article for every website on the web? And I see that the article was once nominated for deletion. I wonder what happened with that... Warren Platts ( talk) 14:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the coverage of this group by CNN and in the book by Arnould are satisfactory for WP:GNG. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 20:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Just realised, coming back to it last para is OR. It's not their stated aim to promote the labelled release interpretation. They just have several pages about it. To say that they promote it, would really need some third party source or citation that says "the ICAMSR promote labelled release" or a statement from their own site that that is their aim. Otherwise seems to me it is OR to say that. And presumably if some future mission were to prove the Viking labelled release experimental results to be caused by non life processes, it wouldn't change their charter, so it is a side issue really.
On the other hand the article doesn't mention their charter at all so needs a brief mention.
So have added short statement of their charter, and removed the last para. It could be added back in again if more neutral in tone so not as an implied criticism of the organization, or if you can find a third party source who make this point as a criticism of the ICAMSR and attribute it to them. The issue I have with it is that it implies a criticism of the ICAMSR - no problem with that - but that the criticism is also attributed to wikipedia itself and is based on a form of OR observing that they discuss Levin's results favourably and also of course Levin being a member, and assuming from that that their aim is to promote his results.
It is natural that they would mention the results and him being a member to have material on the site in favour of his results, but it is OR to conclude from that that that is their aim, to promote Levin's conclusions, especially if not a stated aim. Seems to me entirely possible that they would also publish material by members who are against MSR but critical of Levin's results, e.g. using the modern habitability of Mars research to suggest high probability of life on Mars instead - and just haven't had such material submitted yet.
If you think it should be included, let's discuss it here, and try to come up with a neutral way of saying it. Robert Walker ( talk) 09:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
He is quite possibly their inspiration, but we need a cite to ICAMSR materials saying that, or to some otehr WP:RS saying that about them. Citing Sagan's book written well before ICAMSR was founded does not prove anything about ICAMSR. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 20:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This article should probably be converted to a redir to Mars_sample-return_mission#Potential_for_back_contamination, but since the article creator and primary contributor was just CBAN-ed, it seems appropriate to wait awhile before acting on this. So for time being I'm just posting a note here to maybe get back to. In the meantime, if someone else adopts this article and improves it mightily, great. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
DELETE!!!! - I researched the group and its leader, Barry DiGregorio, and familiar names came up:
I am sure I can dig additional entertaining material, but this is enough. ICAMSR is not notable, not relevant, and definitely not reliable nor influential. Delete this article. Please. Rowan Forest ( talk) 03:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)