Talk:List of potentially habitable moons

Is this article going anywhere except deletion?
Alsee (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) hClass column is empty and should be deleted.
 * 2) All of the 0.000 entries in the distance(ly) column are rediculous and the column should be deleted.
 * 3) The Status column is ridiculous when all the "non-exomoon" entries are changed to simply "moon". Moon is the article topic.
 * 4) SPH HZD HZC HZA are effectively empty columns, a Google search turns up ZERO use of using "Habitable Zone Composition" other than the originator of the term, sites that are explicitly or blatant mirrors of Wikipedia, and a few forums and other user-content sites that strongly appear to have copied it from Wikipedia. I haven't checked SPH, HZD, and HZA, but I suspect the situation is similar. This is not encyclopedic content. Wikipedia should not be promoting the novel or fringe concepts of single self published individual, even if that individual happens to be a scientist making what are effectively blog posts under a university domain. Especially when when many of the values are based on pulling random numbers out of his ass, like the albedo values used to compute SPH for exobodies.
 * 5) Many of the rows are going to be deleted - I seriously doubt there are any reliable sources referring to Pluto as "habitable".
 * 6) The entire article is a mess because it was nothing but a coatrack for the barely-notable ESI in the first place.
 * Alsee I doubt anyone will question you if you BOLD redirect it. This is a list of moons in the solar system in random order essentially. Valoem  talk  contrib  23:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a good target Habitability of natural satellites, even though it is closed as NC defaulting to keep it should be fine as long as no one questions it. If someone does then revert the bold though, it must stay. I'm neutral here, the article is in crappy enough shape though the list is possibly notable. Valoem  talk  contrib  23:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this article be rewritten with multiple different theoretical habitability charts instead of ESI, such research is certainly being done, perhaps Davidbuddy9 has some input. For now I added some secondary sources with discussions of habitability (though not using ESI). Valoem  talk  contrib  00:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Last thing we need to do is delete it. I don't understand why Alsee and Jps wants to delete everything, ever heard of redirects? I suggest WP:TNTing the article as 99% of the original content has already been deleted (I'm talking about the original paragraph not the list itself or the citations). Like or not the ESI is notable enough to be used on this page and instead of using the HabPlanetScore template we could restructure and use the "New format" as I have implemented in List of potentially habitable exoplanets. We need to apply as much info from as many sources as we can (even news articles, like or not they are reliable too). Davidbuddy9  Talk  01:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I redirected to Habitability of natural satellites before seeing your suggestion of that target (chuckle), and your latter comments. Hopefully we're done here. Alsee (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh beat me too it I was going to add some sources. I'm fine with redirect definitely best option for the time. Valoem  talk  contrib  01:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reverted if you would like to add the sources. Davidbuddy9  Talk  01:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep this redirected for now. I found these sources, and . We would need some for a peer reviewed article that would be a start. I've redirected, but I don't care as long as the list contains actual information which it does not right now. Also I am a proponent of redirects to preserve the format for the future.  Valoem  talk  contrib  01:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

there is no agreement on a quantitative definition of habitability -- Mendez When we have confirmed exo-moons we need to be much more conservative about promoting them as "potentially habitable". We cannot be relying on a single source, and any metrics beyond basic physical statics should only be applied after they have established significant mainstream acceptance in the field. Alsee (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)