Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Venus


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonization of Venus
'''NOTE: See more extensive, parallel debate at Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury.

This article is speculative and unencyclopaedic in my opinion. If colonization of Venus should ever occur we would want an article on it, but I don't think we need one right now. We do not try to predict the future. Worldtraveller 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can be encyclopedic if all of its information comes from reputable sources (NASA studies, for example). There is nothing preventing us from having articles about future events or even presenting predictions about future events as long as we are not the originators of the predictions (they come from a reputable source). — Cuivi é  nen  ( talk • contribs ) , Monday, 8 May 2006 @ 11:24 UTC 
 * Keep. siafu 12:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, article is encyclopaedic provided we have verifiable sources. --13:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - legitimate article about the idea of colonising Venus. If it has any faults of OR etc, that is a matter for editing or cleanup, not a valid reason for deletion. The article actually has some good sources already. Metamagician3000 13:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, the biggest problem I see with this article is that it is patently ridiculous... It basically admits in the article this is a complete impossiblility  (a surface colony on Venus in its present form would appear out of the question.)  Moreso than any of the other colonization articles here this is complete science fiction crystalballism.  It is kind of amusing though to see an article on colonization that is basically a big list of why it can never happen.--Isotope23 15:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. This article is not advocating colonies on Venus, it is presenting ideas for such a venture that have been published elsewhere and listing their pros and cons. If you come away with good reasons why Venus is not a great place for a colony, the article has served a useful purpose.--agr 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep &mdash; Of interest in terms of terraforming discussions to describe the scientific issues of the problem. It is more theoretica than practical, but it has been discussed scientifically. &mdash; RJH 16:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As someone who has worked extensively on this article I realize I may have a POV in this discussion. However, I believe the article is encyclopædic.  It concerns a matter that has been under discussion in the mainstream scientific community for decades.  The article does not try to predict the future, nor speculate, but rather simply lays out differing perspectives that currently exist about its topic, as per Wikipedia convention. Furthermore, the impact upon or resemblance to science fiction of the topic is not a sufficient reason for deletion, in my opinion.  In fact, I had been planning to add an "In Fiction" section where the topic was a major background or plot element in science fiction. LeoO3 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, per nominator. Complete speculation, plus the article itself is more argument/opinion than anything. Fluit 17:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It will need to have more citations (as per the other entries in "Colonization...").  Keep as a package.  Speculation is OK, so long as it is Professional Speculation. Ted 17:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - because it (ideally) discusses objective, factual information about the great deal of past and current commentary and technical research on these ideas, a great deal of which has been funded by NASA and other space organizations and which has been carried out in peer-reviewed scientific literature, the record of which is entirely a matter of fact, not speculation. The first peer-reviewed scientific paper on colonizing another planet (by Carl Sagan in the prestigious journal Science, on the potential to terraform and colonize Venus) was published almost fifty years ago, and such literature has been growing exponentially since then. Such factual information on past and ongoing research and commentary is no more speculative in nature than is any subject of scientific or engineering research. The Colonization of Mercury page is so far sparse and lacking in sources, but those should be remedied by further work, not by trashing a valuable subject. See also e.g. Terraforming, Planetary engineering, Robert Zubrin, Gerard O'Neill, Martyn J. Fogg, The Mars Society, The National Space Society, the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Carl Sagan, Wernher von Braun, Verein für Raumschiffahrt, and the links from these articles. And this is besides the further value of the entries to provide factual information on the idea of colonizing these planets in literature and the arts and as a subject of anthropological, cultural and sociological interest. See also more extensive debate at Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury, and see WikiProject Space Colonization. - Reaverdrop 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup (add cited content) per Reaverdrop and others. Barno 18:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Metamagician3000 :) Dlohcierekim 18:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Lankiveil 00:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Georgewilliamherbert 04:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article is based on very legitimate scientists and researchers work on this subject; overall, a very irresponsible attempt to delete this article, and I question the knowledge of the subject by those who would nominate it for deletion. Judgesurreal777 23:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as with my opinions with the other space-colonisation articles. Beno1000 01:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.