Talk:Martina Dimoska

Schedule for deletion

The article is of low quality, person not subject of historical interest worthy of a page ~2026-22200-13 (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Resolving of Active Issues on this Page

I've contributed to resolving the active issues on this Article, before I remove the multiple issues tag I would like to get a second opinion from other people. If nobody contributes to this topic I will assume that all issues are resolved and remove the tag. ~2026-26469-80 (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The article isn't even slightly improved to resolve those issues. Analogue astronauts are practically laboratory mice. They're used as an experimental material to test the resistance of the human body and the efficiency of space suits under extreme conditions found in extraterrestrial space. To demonstrate that an analogue astronaut is notable, there has to be some information on the results from their missions and why they're considered important (e.g. longer exposure to low-oxygen environments than previously thought, resistance to extreme temperatures that extend the previous temperature span etc.), but the article only mentions the missions that the person was part of without presenting a single sign of notability (for what it's worth, there are hundreds of analogue missions in the world annually). Moreover, the article heavily relies on primary or secondary sources revolving around the person's education and claimed advocacy work in the NGO sector, which has apparently resulted in presenting tons of non-notable promotional facts that were accumulated to make an impression that the article is in decent shape. I fail to see why 'national point of contact' is a significant role for a person with a Wikipedia article or why cheering on the Artemis II Splashdown is a big achievement for someone from the space industry (note that hundreds of space engineers worked on designing and building the Orion spacecraft, but the English Wikipedia celebrates a person who cheered on the Artemis II Splashdown). In essence, the article contains so much non-notable facts that removing them altogether would result in a void biography with no encyclopaedic importance whatsoever. Last but not least, the article actively promotes Astro sMarta as her name used on the social networks. I took a look at her Twitter account to notice that she published a photo comparing her to Margaret Hamilton and at her Facebook profile to notice that she publicly celebrated the creation of the Wikipedia article about her. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Analogue astronauts are practically laboratory mice. They're used as an experimental material to test the resistance of the human body and the efficiency of space suits under extreme conditions found in extraterrestrial space. - Analog astronauts are not “laboratory mice” or “experimental material.” They are trained human participants, researchers, operators, engineers, scientists, and mission crew members who voluntarily take part in simulated spaceflight environments to study how humans, systems, procedures, technologies, and teams perform under conditions that resemble aspects of space exploration. FYI you are calling "laboratory mices" people such as Sian Proctor, Jessica Meir etc. that went to Outer Space, did a lot of things and still in their first paragraph on Wikipedia their Analog Mission is mentioned. Editors with STEM background and not Economics definitely find those achievements important.

To demonstrate that an analogue astronaut is notable, there has to be some information on the results from their missions and why they're considered important. 1. APICES - according to the Czech Space Portal and ESA Bic, Independent Notable European Space Agency's Official Mediums, and according to the Research Published on the mission: This mission is alligned with Terrae Novae 2030+, where Dimoska together with ESA Astronaut Commander Aleš Svoboda (astronaut) and the other crew contributed towards our understanding of how people, drones, and other technology works in deep caves, where satellite communications including GPS are limited. Testing robots for mapping the subsurface terrain which is crucial for future long-stay missions on Moon/Mars. Testing how people can operate without sunlight deep in caves for longer period of times etc. ESA finds more value and it's supporting this mission and even includes their astronaut in it, but you don't. 2. Selene and Terra Nova - Missions from Lunares focused on testing isolation, confinement, self-sufficiency, health and wellbeing, team dynamics, performance, technology etc. Here is all the research conducted on those missions. especially Terra Nova together with Axiom-4 was more than a standard analog rotation. It was connected to the AstroMentalHealth project, which studied mental and behavioral health, work performance, and interaction with nature and technological environments during a space mission which contributed to our understanding about the Mental Health of isolated astronauts. 3. UND ILMAH - as I can understand this was her first mission. This mission is worth mentioning in this article as her starting point. I'm not sure about the actual impact of this mission because there are not a lot of public information available about it, besides being funded by NASA and doing research on Advanced Space Suites. Moreover, the article heavily relies on primary or secondary sources revolving around the person's education and claimed advocacy work in the NGO sector, which has apparently resulted in presenting tons of non-notable promotional facts that were accumulated to make an impression that the article is in decent shape. - Sources include: Forbes, Bloomberg, ESA, Czech Space Portal, National Geographic, International Astronautical Federation. What do you mean non-notable? I fail to see why 'national point of contact' is a significant role - On this one I agree with you, SGAC is very notable organization in the space sector, but National Point of Contact should not be on this page. Since Dimoska is member of the Space Exploration Project Group and is Co-Leading the DREAM Analogue Mission Team in SGAC I'm sure that this title should be there. note that hundreds of space engineers worked on designing and building the Orion spacecraft, but the English Wikipedia celebrates a person who cheered on the Artemis II Splashdown - Those moments are not just a random cheering, those images/videos captured the live reaction of people that were at Jhonson Space Center at that specific historic moment of new space era. Last but not least, the article actively promotes Astro sMarta as her name used on the social networks. - It just mentions it as an Other Name. as in every other article about a person with other alias. I took a look at her Twitter account to notice that she published a photo comparing her to Margaret Hamilton - I think this has a wrong hyperlink but looked online and found an image that fits your description on Facebook. I Understand this as a comparison of the documents, not the achievements of the people, and what's the point of this image in this topic? that she publicly celebrated the creation of the Wikipedia article about her. 1. I would celebrate also If someone created page about me. Probably you would celebrate also if the page you created yourself about you in 2008 was approved. And a lot of other people did: Shoaib Ahmed Malik did here, Elizabeth Booker Houston did here, Solomon Quainoo did here, Carly Findlay did here. etc. the list goes on and on, probably thousands of people that discovered that there is a page about them.

TL;DR: Just some information about the notability of the person of this article. Not the most impressive article out there on Wikipedia. But definitely more notable than a lot of other articles. I feel like @Kiril Simeonovski is driven by personal feelings more than by facts. ~2026-27256-83 (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You need to assume good faith. I think the editor has valid concerns about the article. Here are some issues:

• The Zaev Foundation, EIT Deep Tech Talent Initiative, Lunares Space, Illkirch-Graffenstaden: International Space University, ESA BIC, International Space Alliance and SGAC are not independent sources and cannot be used to establish notability as per WP:GNG. You cannot use sources of organizations that she is a member of, organizations that have provided financial support to her or even sources written by the subject.
• The Favikon source is as reliable as any social media source.
• The "Personal life" section does not really provide any actual coverage about her personal life. Cheering is definitely nothing significant and the sources do not even mention her directly and explicitly. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Analog astronauts are not “laboratory mice” or “experimental material.” They are trained human participants, researchers, operators, engineers, scientists, and mission crew members who voluntarily take part in simulated spaceflight environments to study how humans, systems, procedures, technologies, and teams perform under conditions that resemble aspects of space exploration. Clinical trial participants are also trained humans, who may be medics, biologists and geneticists, with a strong immune system to sustain the potential side effects of the drugs they're exposed to. I doubt that a person who participated in a clinical trial of a new revolutionary drug would merit a Wikipedia article. Sian Proctor and Jessica Meir are real astronauts, so your comparison is quite wide off the mark. I wouldn't object the existence of this article if Martina Dimoska travelled to space, but its notability revolves around her being the first analogue astronaut from the Balkans.

1. APICES - according to the Czech Space Portal and ESA Bic, Independent Notable European Space Agency's Official Mediums, and according to the Research Published on the mission: This mission is alligned with Terrae Novae 2030+, where Dimoska together with ESA Astronaut Commander Aleš Svoboda (astronaut) and the other crew contributed towards our understanding of how people, drones, and other technology works in deep caves, where satellite communications including GPS are limited. Testing robots for mapping the subsurface terrain which is crucial for future long-stay missions on Moon/Mars. Testing how people can operate without sunlight deep in caves for longer period of times etc. ESA finds more value and it's supporting this mission and even includes their astronaut in it, but you don't. 2. Selene and Terra Nova - Missions from Lunares focused on testing isolation, confinement, self-sufficiency, health and wellbeing, team dynamics, performance, technology etc. Here is all the research conducted on those missions. especially Terra Nova together with Axiom-4 was more than a standard analog rotation. It was connected to the AstroMentalHealth project, which studied mental and behavioral health, work performance, and interaction with nature and technological environments during a space mission which contributed to our understanding about the Mental Health of isolated astronauts. 3. UND ILMAH - as I can understand this was her first mission. This mission is worth mentioning in this article as her starting point. Nothing of this is in the article. If all these achievements are groundbreaking, then they should be included to support notability.

Forbes and Bloomberg are reliable sources. However, the fact that they mention her in their news articles doesn't make her notable per se for a Wikipedia article. We need reliable sources with more in-depth coverage about her life that would replace this personal interview or this primary source.

Those moments are not just a random cheering, those images/videos captured the live reaction of people that were at Jhonson Space Center at that specific historic moment of new space era. I wasn't there to know the feeling of that moment, but it seems completely irrelevant from an encyclopaedic viewpoint. Mo Farah and Ellie Kildunne officially started the 2026 London Marathon last week (see here), which is a much bigger role than cheering, but that fact is simply not mentioned in either article. Just for the record, it was the first race in history in which a man officially ran a marathon under two hours.

I would celebrate also If someone created page about me. Probably you would celebrate also if the page you created yourself about you in 2008 was approved. And a lot of other people did: Shoaib Ahmed Malik did here, Elizabeth Booker Houston did here, Solomon Quainoo did here, Carly Findlay did here. etc. the list goes on and on, probably thousands of people that discovered that there is a page about them. There's nothing wrong in celebrating a Wikipedia article. But the timing of her Facebook post shortly after the article was approved only supports the suspicion that she might be in close connection with the person who created the article. I don't believe a person who doesn't care checks Wikipedia every day to see if there's an article about them.

I feel like @Kiril Simeonovski is driven by personal feelings more than by facts. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to care about the quality of Wikipedia articles. This one clearly aims to promote a person in a niche field rather than demonstrate notability. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Someone already fixed the issues about sources mentioned by you and @StephenMacky1, Thank to both of you for contributing with actual improvements and pointing the real issues. If you think that anything else should be change from the sources to the stronger one, please make it clear here.

About the celebration, Wikipedia has the best SEO from all the sites, and usually within days it's ranked 1st on all the search engines. People probably don't search themselves on Wikipedia, but I'm sure that they google themselves especially if they are public figures. I don't know what's the case in this situation. Maybe she knew about the article, maybe she found it on google, at this point we can only make assumptions.

So, I only have to add this comment:

I can give you at least 10 articles about people in the same niche field and let me know if they are with better sources? As I mentioned before, this article is far away from the best sourced article on Wikipedia. But I'm sure that this is salvageable and compared to a lot of articles about living people this one is more notable. I see the potential for this article to grow and be improved in future. It needs improvements, changes and better sourcing, but definitely it's not for deletion. Assuming good faith and documenting the beginnings of the Macedonian Space Sector, I'm sure that this article should stay here, and in future be translated to the Macedonian Wikipedia as well. For me it's strange that from all Articles in this niche, this one is the only one getting a lot of negative feedback especially from Editors from the same region as the person in this Article. Meanwhile this article is better sourced than average article in that Niche. Let's contribute to having more and better articles, deletion is always the easier option. As promised, here you got 10+ articles:

1. Hanna Harutyunyan
2. Kristine Atienza
3. Yajaira Sierra-Sastre
4. Niamh Shaw
5. Arnaud Prost
6. Darlene Lim
7. Dennis Chamberland
8. Jonathan Dory
9. Michaela Musilová (astrobiologist)
10. Carmen Victoria Félix Chaidez
11. Christopher Cokinos

~2026-27256-83 (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Most of the names you're referring to have contributed to other fields that make them notable for a Wikipedia article, so it seems like you're trying to artificially elevate her notability in the same way she did on Twitter by comparing herself to Margaret Hamilton (only exception is perhaps Hanna Harutyunyan, which coincidentally worked together with her and even has a photo together, but that's not a topic that should be discussed here per WP:OTHERSTUFF). After 'someone' already fixed the issues about the sources, I still fail to see how the article demonstrates that the person is notable. There's simply no info why those analogue missions stand out amongst the several hundreds such missions annually and what this person did during those missions. In comparison, take a look at the articles about the most important analogue missions, such as MARS-500, HI-SEAS and NEEMO, and note that we don't have articles about every participant. In the same way we cannot have an article about every professional footballer, about every university professor or about every writer who has published a book, we cannot have an article about every person who has participated in a human analogue mission or established a local NGO to popularise space science. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have done something of similar significance in their lives, which is documented in some sources, but that doesn't mean that we should collect all those sources to build articles and make the impression that they're inherently notable. Wikipedia works in a way that we cannot have an article about every single person in the world, and it doesn't mean that the person is not notable at all if their biography isn't on Wikipedia (see WP:NOTABILITY for further details).

However, the main problem here is with that 'someone'. I checked all IP addresses that were used to edit this article—namely, ~2026-26283-85 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), ~2026-26423-40 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), ~2026-26512-90 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), ~2026-26469-80 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), ~2026-26702-42 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), ~2026-27208-01 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), ~2026-27281-75 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) and ~2026-27293-24 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)—and their location is the same as yours, which clearly points out that this is again a case of abusing multiple accounts in the same way it was with Kiril's mom (talk · contribs), which was utterly insulting, and Vrca Trfnva (talk · contribs), which aimed at revealing my mother's real name. So, we're clearly not moving anywhere as there's lack of good faith and all this looks like an agenda-driven editing with the goal of proving that great effort was collectively made to improve and salvage the article. I'm afraid that the next step should inevitably be reporting this to WMF Trust and Safety and WMF Legal as interacting with someone persistently abusing multiple accounts and IP addresses doesn't belong to a safe environment. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who contributed constructive feedback and sourcing improvements, and others who focused on actionable issues within the article itself.

At this stage, I believe the discussion should focus on whether the subject meets notability requirements and whether the article is improvable, not whether the current revision is perfect. The sourcing concerns initially raised are already being addressed, and several independent sources have now been added.

While the article certainly still needs refinement, stronger formatting, and additional high-quality sourcing, I do not believe deletion is the appropriate outcome here. Wikipedia policy supports improvement and cleanup when a topic demonstrates plausible notability and the issues are fixable.

This is also a highly niche field where coverage standards are often inconsistent across articles. I am not arguing “other articles exist, therefore this one should stay,” but rather pointing out that articles about professionals in analog astronautics, space advocacy, emerging space sectors, and interdisciplinary aerospace work are frequently developed incrementally over time as additional sourcing becomes available. That is common across many STEM-related biographies.

The subject appears to have received independent coverage connected to analog astronaut missions, international space initiatives, STEM leadership, and NASA-affiliated activities. Whether every current source is ideal is a separate issue from whether the topic itself is encyclopedic.

I would also encourage everyone to keep this discussion focused on the article itself, specifically its sourcing, neutrality, structure, and whether the topic demonstrates encyclopedic value through independent coverage. I fully agree that the article still requires additional improvements, but I do feel the level of scrutiny surrounding it has become somewhat disproportionate compared to many biographies within similarly niche STEM and space-related fields, especially considering that substantial improvements have already been made during this discussion and the article appears clearly salvageable through continued editorial work.

I also believe the article has broader value in documenting the early development of participation in the space sector from underrepresented regions, including the Macedonian space ecosystem. Topics like these are naturally less covered by major Western media at early stages, which can make article development slower, but that alone should not automatically weigh toward deletion if notability can reasonably be demonstrated through available independent sources.

Ultimately, the question here should not be whether the current revision is perfect, but whether the topic demonstrates sufficient potential notability through independent coverage such that improvement is preferable to deletion. In my view, it does, and this is a clear case for continued improvement rather than deletion. ~2026-27256-83 (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)