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 the lead paragraph to Apollo 11 and transwiki the text. This outcome was fortified by the consensus made by a group of users who gave relevant reason against keeping the content as a separate entry. While most of people decided to keep, it should be noted that among the keep voters exist two main parties with one supported “let it stand as a separate article” for “it’s interesting and historically important so it deserves a place on wikipedia” and the other reasoned that the core of the article centered on the text itself with no further development, which goes off the track what Wikipedia means to do. Many users who took part in this afd seemed not to grasp thoroughly which direction the discussion was proceeding, thus gave the impertinent comments. In view of these antithetical arguments, I came to a decision that the proposal held by latter group is enacted because:

1. Information about this “historical” speech can perfectly be merged to a section in Apollo 11 and correspond to the content there. No promising vision of expansion for the in-question article is foreseeable. To sum up, this article contains two main sections: the first one has already been included in Apollo 11; the second one is the text which appeared to be the focal point. Since Wikipedia is not a mere collection of public domain or other source material, the input of the text proved to be inappropriate. In spite of being backed-up with reliable sources, the article fails to claim its own stand.
2. With regard to the external link to reddit supplied by User:Dhartung, there seems a sign of canvassing occurring outside Wikipedia. Not to mention that canvassing is not encouraged, the seemingly canvassed users failed to give a more proper reason no other than “it’s interesting” or “it’s important”. AFD process is not a majority vote.

The whole article will be merged completely except for the text. The title will still be kept as a redirect to the section in Apollo 11. However, effort of expansion is actuated and idea of recreating the article will be taken into consideration if considerable input is made. @pple complain 10:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really appropriate for Wikipedia as it is not an article, probably more appropriate for wiki-quote or wiki-source but that's for people on those projects to really decide. Cat-five - talk 10:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki -- The article is mostly source material, and should be on Wikisource. It could be referenced in the Apollo 11 article, the Apollo program article, or maybe the article on NASA. The material is certainly of "general interest", not to be relegated to a footnote for Apollo buffs; but it is not 'encyclopaedic', just as reprints with origin notes are not. jsnx 00:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- Merge it with the Apollo 11 article n stuff.
• Keep and stubify - Plenty of context meriting its own article. Sfacets 10:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep 88.192.86.79 18:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete text of speech; instead link-to another wikiproject and discuss/introduce here. Ulmanor 11:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is very notable and in my opinion a great look at history and the thought processes of those who were going to the moon. Jlam4911 16:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep - notable, there's been two History Channel and/or Science Channel docs about it. Doc Strange 11:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this is an important historical document and deserves to be in an encyclopedia --85.177.119.150 11:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is important historical document and deserves to be in an encyclopedia. Waterpie 12:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.211.178.251 (talk) [reply]
  • This is not a vote, so please don't list the same comment three times. --Hnsampat 13:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The moon landings historical significance assure it's noteability.Geni 13:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any relevant information to Apollo 11 and move the text of the speech to Wikisource. There's no need to have a separate article for this speech; there's not much to say about it, since it was never given. --Hnsampat 13:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's interesting enough on its own to warrant an article. What's the problem here? 99.246.250.157 13:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It adds to the historical record and our understanding of the Moon Landing; the preparation, fears and thoughts. Very educational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.108.123 (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Relevant to several topics, interesting, and notable for its unique origin and context. Brain Rodeo 14:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Part of mankind's history - SamFlans 14:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is an important historical document and deserves to be in the encyclopedia. It shows the real thought processes of government. EasterBunny31 1:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.80.102 (talk)
• Keep Although the article fails to mention it, the existence of this was only made public within the last few years, and it was a surprise to those of us who watched Apollo 11 on TV. Mandsford 15:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge partially into Apollo 11, partly to Wikisource. Will ^(talk) 15:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Hnsampat. The article is certainly of historical interest--if nothing else, its existence is--but, since it wasn't given there is no need for a separate article. Move speech text to Wikisource; merge article prose into Apollo 11. Ourai ^тʃ_с 15:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's a fascinating part of mankind's history. ---You'reMyJuliet 15:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it. Lord knows there's enough crap in Wikipedia that's far more deserving of deletion than this. This is actually an interesting historical document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.90.97 (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an interesting document, which is why it should go to Wikisource. --Hnsampat 20:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is useful, interesting, and relevant. Note: I'm an occasional-contributor and an often-user, and I'm getting a little tired of the "deletionists" who want to purge everything out of Wikipedia that doesnt' meet their private standards. The whole point of an ONLINE encyclopedia is that there are no limits to what you can add! Stop messing with the community's resource! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkoetsier (talk • contribs) 16:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This seems like deliberate backlash from this getting linked to on popular social bookmarking sites such as reddit. I'm tired of articles getting demolished, ruined, or outright deleted when they become popular. This is a bad faith nomination. 75.65.91.142 16:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm tired of people being so eager to delete things from Wikipedia. Removing (factual) things from an encylopedia is like censoring history. xyroclast 16:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a relevant article that I'm sure you'll find very little about on other sites than Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldthoughts (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Relevant background to the lunar missions, and something that foreshadows potential future events as China, India, and the US head for the moon. The article could easily be expanded to discuss some of the then-current, as well as future contingency planning for the Orion/Constellation lunar missions. Ender78 17:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an interesting piece of history. KevinScaldeferri 17:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a relavent part of American history. --BennyD 17:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and advise the nominator to think carefully before nominating another article to AFD. Worldthoughts, this is not something that you'll find very little about on other sites than wikipedia. Multiple reliable sources can be found very easily with a quick google. This article is the definition of notability. THE KING 17:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability of this speech is not being questioned, merely the necessity of having it as a separate article. --Hnsampat 20:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why wasn't a merge proposal made instead of AfD? This isn't Articles for Merging. Bryan Derksen 07:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good question. Frankly, I think a merge proposal is more in order than an AfD. However, it's possible the nominator felt that the information in this article is redundant with what has already been said in the Apollo 11 article (which it is, more or less). --Hnsampat 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I personally cannot see anything to justify the nominator's argument. The article is notable, and while it may be in need of a little fleshing out and citations added, its is certainly not worthy of being removed.The Mysterious X 17:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've noticed that almost every "keep" argument posted above follows the same basic rationale, namely that the article is interesting, that articles of "lesser importance" exist on Wikipedia, and that it deserves to be on Wikipedia simply for being a historic document, all of which are considered arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I'd like to comment that nobody questions the notability of this document. Clearly, it's a historic document. However, Wikipedia is not the place for historical soruces; that's what Wikisource is for. Furthermore, there is simply no need to have this as a separate article. Any relevant information can easily be put into the Apollo 11 article and the speech can be moved to Wikisource. That would be the way to go with this article. --Hnsampat 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Partially keep, partially transwiki Clearly notable with excellent third-party coverage and over 50 archived newspaper articles on NewsBank. [1] [2] Transwiki the text, but maintain an article on the speech itself. east.718 at 17:57, 10/27/2007
• Transwiki Text of speech as Wikipedia is not WikiSource. The rest of article could use improvement but appears to be a verifiable encyclopedic topic. —dgies^t_c 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per Dgies. It's federal government work, so PD if I understand correctly; it's an article on a historical document, and said document makes up basically the majority of the article. Once it's safely ensconced in Wikisource, I'd say slap some merge templates on it. I really think this would be more interesting in context. --Gwern (contribs) 18:09 27 October 2007 (GMT)
• Partially keep, partially transwiki per User:east718 and User:Dgies. --3M163//Complete Geek 18:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Partially keep, partially transwiki as above. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Against a merge: I'm totally against the spread of mega-mergers. An Encyclopedia is not a novel. It makes for unefficient research to be confronted with entries, that go on for pages. That's why the hyperlink was created in the first place.

Against deletion: It's valuable information. And there doesn't seem to be any harm in keeping the article.Hirsch.im.wald 19:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment to all - Has anybody noticed that all of the information in this article (except for the text of the speech) is already in the Apollo 11 article? (The direct link is here: Apollo 11#Contingency television broacast.) This article is therefore redundant and ought to be deleted (after the speech has been copied to Wikisource). The information won't be lost because it's already there where it ought to be (i.e. right there with the rest of the information about Apollo 11). --Hnsampat 20:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - History around Mankind's exploration of the Moon deserves to be in an encyclopedia. Wikipedian231 20:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Agreed, but no need to have it as a separate article, especially when the information is already there in the Apollo 11 article. --Hnsampat 20:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see lots of potential for an article for just the speech. It would be good to use summary style, which will at the same time encourage the expansion of a new stub. east.718 at 20:44, 10/27/2007
      • Can you be more specific about how to expand it? That's quite important right now, and if you have any familiarity with speech articles, it'd be helpful. I'm verging on keep myself due to the assurations that the certainly significant subject can be covered better as its own article. --Kizor 00:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Change of opinion: 'Merge with Apollo 11 article, put text on wikisource. Wikipedian231 20:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It has somewhat more detail (e.g., the exact source of the speech, the small amount of textual analysis), and has a different focus reflected in the prose, compared to what would be appropriate in the Apollo 11 article. The text of the speech itself can be put onto wikisource, but it's small enough that it serves readers well to have it in the article as well.--ragesoss 21:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge It probably isn't notable on its own. It was never actually read by the president, and there is no conclusive evidence that Nixon would have even read it there was a moon disaster. It definitely belongs on Wikipedia, but in an article that gives it context. Remove this article and put all the information in this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11#Contingency_television_address Rm999 21:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's notable on its own. Chexov29 21:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable. Could use a few more sources. Mindraker 21:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it, as several sources] verify it, and these sources alone are enough to make it notable, regardless of surrounding circumstances, which only add to notability. Another option is to find a good place to merge it, but none of the related topics seem appropriate. —siroχo 22:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources seem reasonable and the article is one of the most interesting and notable I've read on Wikipedia. I've editted numerous Wikipedia articles over the years Punkgeek 23:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki transwikify the text of the speach to wikisource, and merge the remainder of the article to the Apollo 11 article. KTo288 23:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikisource, keep article. Poor research on part of nominator. --Dhartung | Talk 23:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki actual speech to Wikisource, keep and stub the article, expand to be an article about the speech rather than the text of the speech. This seems a clean-up issue rather than a deletion issue. I am disturbed by the canvassing that appears to have occured that brought all of the keep votes, but as a whole the article seems to pass all required guidelines. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not only because of the content of the speech, but the context given by the article. It is clearly notable. Kablammo 00:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: notable and provides context. Maybe transwiki text of the speech to wikisource. Noah Tye 01:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Merge' with Apollo 11. The article can not be extended further and has no real encyclopaedic value (how many people will specifically look this article up. On the other hand, Apollo 11 is established and the information here would benefit that article. Nachmore 03:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikisource keep article. -- 71.191.47.120 03:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm a bit concerned about the number of people who have been simply saying that the article is "interesting" and "notable." First of all, the notability of the subject matter has never been disputed. More than that, though, the fact that so many people are saying those exact two things (and nothing else) is a bit worrisome. Why are so many people saying the same thing over and over, rather than making unique contributions? Also, there's a conspicuous absence of relevant policy discussion in this AfD. --Hnsampat 03:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment See reddit. It probably shows up in feeds on other websites as well as a highly-ranked science article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikisource, merge remaining article to Apollo 11. This can easily fit in the Apollo 11 article. Yes, it's notable, historically significant, etc., but that doesn't change WP:NOT and other Wikipedia policies. —Tokek 03:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Valuable information, problem is possibly more due to the vague title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.229.19 (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki the text to Wikisource, merge the rest of the article to Apollo 11. I don't think many people understand what's really being proposed here. No one here has suggested permanently removing the content of the article. This is just about moving it to a more appropriate location. The verbatim text of the speech goes to Wikisource, which is exactly what Wikisource is meant for, and the context of the speech gets added to Apollo 11, where more people will see it. There will always be a link from Apollo 11 to the Wikisource article so it will be easy to find. No one wants to get rid of it, just put it where it belongs. – Þ  08:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Perhaps because this is getting so much attention, in particular from being covered by reddit, that says something about the standards for what should be a stand alone article. The reddit exposure would not have happened without this being stand alone. Perhaps in the shifting world of social bookmarking/linking the encyclopedia standards for what is stand alone should shift also? I also agree that the current title for this article does not satisfy WP:NOT, I would rename it to be more encyclopedic but keep it stand alone and include a mention of it in the Apollo 11 article. This article is making me reconsider the degree to which rich topics like Apollo 11 can be handled in one long article versus links to smaller related but separate articles. Owlmonkey 08:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The text of the speech would still be a standalone article on Wikisource for reddit to link to. Either way, I don't think we should be breaking up articles into bite-sized chunks just because of social bookmarking sites. All of Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, so anyone who wants to pull out a section of an article and repurpose it for their own needs is free to do so. – Þ  09:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good article is one that says what it needs to say, and no more. An article need only be a handful of sentences if it covers its subject adequately. There are many short articles in other reference works. This article is interesting not only because of its connection to the Apollo mission, but also because it shows how the White House (and, more generally, offices of heads of state or government) work to plan for appropriate responses to all contingencies, including a possible national tragedy. Although the piece could use work, its size makes it more accessible to the reader than a longer piece where one has to read to the end before encountering the subject. Kablammo 10:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately as a reference article no one is going to look up "In Event of Moon Disaster" - and even if they do, who says they are looking for Apollo 11? The article title could cover the breakup of the moon due to meteorite impact and plans by the USSR to control the breakup. Merging this into Apollo 11 (with a Wikisource reference) under it's own section (so that people can see it easily in the contents list under its own heading and won't have to read the "whole" article) properly places the article in context. Nachmore 12:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Searches for Apollo, 11, and disaster, and for moon, mission, and disaster, both yield this this article in the top 20 returns. The title may not be the best, but redirects can be created. Kablammo 12:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Apollo 11 article, as it relevant, factual information about that event that also helps illuminate that subject's context, both political and historical. Additionally, a lot of this confusion from Digg and Reddit users could have been avoided if a "proposed merge" tag, or whatever was added to the the article Xkimota 21:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a significant bit of history worthy of coverage, but I don't see how it could be merged smoothly into an article on another topic. There's more here than just the source material, commentary and analysis and such, so transwikiing doesn't seem like a good idea either. Bryan Derksen 07:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What other information? Why "into an article on another topic? Apollo 11 *is* the general focus of the article! Nachmore 08:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but it needs to be expanded. An interesting aspect of Apollo 11 that I actually was unaware existed until just now -- it's one of the things that makes Wikipedia worthwhile. But it needs more content than just the speech otherwise, as noted above, it might as well be in Wikisource. There is no doubt a lot of information out there regarding contingencies that could be integrated into this article. The title needs to be changed, though. BTW since this is one of those AFD debates where some participants are adding rebuttal, please be advised I do not follow AFD debates after I have made my personal decision. Feel free to talk page me if you want. 23skidoo 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki and merge (to wikisource and Apollo 11, respectively). Although this information is very interesting, the speech itself clearly belongs on wikisource, and I find it hard to see how it can be expanded beyond a stub. If anyone can explain what more can be added, I might change to transwiki and keep. --14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taejo (talk • contribs)
• Keep. Historically important, verifiable, notable - David Gerard 22:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to future contributors - The historical importance and notability of this never-given speech are not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not a separate article should exist or whether this should be a part of the Apollo 11 article. Please address that matter specifically. Please also note that, even if this article is eventually kept, the text of the speech itself will most likely be moved to Wikisource in accordance with policy, leaving only a stub of an article. Please give that matter due consideration when contributing to this discussion. --Hnsampat 00:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't think it's unreasonable to excerpt short documents such as these in their entirety. We have the text of the entire Article One of the United States Constitution, in its article, and just Section 8 alone is as long as this speech. Publicola 18:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing inherently wrong with including the original source in the article, provided that the article serves a higher purpose. The articles on the Constitution that you cite do indeed have a higher purpose, namely to discuss how those sections of the Constitution have been analyzed and interpreted over time and their relevance today. However, the article in question here can serve no higher purpose other than to simply say that this speech was prepared but never given. If we remove the original text, there's only a stub of an article left, a stub that can't really be expanded. So, the bottom line is that, without the speech, this article doesn't have enough content to merit keeping it as a separate article. That is why the growing consensus on this page (if we ignore all of the "keep" votes that simply cite "historical importance" and "notability," which aren't in dispute here) is that we transwiki the speech to Wikisource and merge the article into the Apollo 11 article. --Hnsampat 02:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, showing the text in question is in fact a higher purpose than to say the speech was prepared but never given. Both this and Article One of the United States Constitution provide commentary and context for the reader. Publicola 12:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Providing mere context is not the job of Wikipedia; it is the job of Wikisource. If the text in question is shown on Wikipedia, then it must serve some additional purpose as well, such as describing the historical impact of that text. For instance, in order to talk about how the questionable wording of the Second Amendment has been interpreted over the years, it makes sense to show the text of the Second Amendment. In order to show how modern renditions of the Hippocratic Oath differ from the original, it makes sense to show the original. However, this article does not go above and beyond merely providing the context. To put it another way, the articles on the Constitution, the Hippocratic Oath, etc. can still have content if we remove the original text. However, this article is reduced to an unexpandable stub if we remove the text. In the other articles, the original text supports the central thrust of the article; in this article, the original text (the speech) is the central thrust. This is not what Wikipedia is for. --Hnsampat 13:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only reason the stub would be unexpandable is because background information would fall within Apollo 11 or other space program articles. As with the Gettysburg Address and Jabberwocky, the text provides encyclopedic value that mere commentary can not. Publicola 14:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • In those examples the actual text is the article, and is noteworthy in itself. In this case the text itself out of context has no real meaning or noteworthiness - it is a speech that was prepared in the event of an Apollo 11 disaster. This general Delete discussion is more of a merge discussion, as not many people truly believe that the article should be deleted. Merging in this case seems to make sense since the speech directly relates to the Apollo 11 article and will be part of the natural flow of that article. On the other hand the article as it stands is a stub, in that it has no real flow and no real context as an article in itself (it does if you click through). Good to see healthy discussion :) Nachmore 15:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Above we are told that the historical importance and notability are not in dispute, and so if they in fact are, then I say that the speech is important and notable in its own right. Publicola 09:28, 1 November 2007 (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.