Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life on Mercury


 * 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 redirect to Extraterrestrial_life. Not deleted because WP:CHEAP (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 08:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Life on Mercury

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Existence of article is misleading because there is little serious speculation about life of Mercury. Originally, article was redirected to Mercury (planet), but restored without prejudice to AfD after discussion at Redirects for discussion A2soup (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The topic of life on Mercury has been a part of fantasy and science fiction works for a long time, and you can even go back to mythology and legends from the time in which the planet was first discovered as well. There's many sources for that, just look at here for an example about Mercury-based science fiction. Now, of course, there's no little green men there now in reality, nor has there been. But that the article is badly written doesn't mean that it totally should be deleted. Wikipedia is crammed full of articles on notable fictional concepts: Goblins, Ghouls, Angels, Demons, Satyrs, Ghosts, Leprechauns ('In the hood, yo!'), and it goes on. That applies to astronomy-based things as well, like with Venus in fiction. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood, but would you recommend keep and merge to Mercury in fiction? A2soup (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is WP:SYNTHESIS of it's own sources and general hand-waving and open ended questions. One of the sources even says that "Mercury itself is unlikely to be habitable." The topic was sufficiently covered in all it's glorious depth, two sentences, in Mercury (planet). It has also been noted that the original creator seems to be on a crusade, against consensus, to introduce multiple WP:BARE articles in the form of "Life on X" for every astronomical body in the universe.--Savonneux (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I might also point out that there was already a merge discussion for this article where it was closed as a merge to Mercury (planet), here is convo Talk:Life_on_Mercury--Savonneux (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - The relevant info and references have already been merged to Mercury. It would forever be a stub. BatteryIncluded (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - The one purported source for this article is a link to a light-weight article in Astrobiology magazine. That article, in turn, links to an academic article that is not actually about life on Mercury, but, instead, about life that might arise on planets that have an orbital resonance like Mercury. Mercury is held up as an example of a planet with such a resonance, thus providing evidence that, more generally, planets can have such a resonance. Mercury is not cited as an example of where life might arise, since habitability takes more than just a certain orbital resonance. Really, on controversial subjects, like "life on Mercury", we need to be more careful in citing sources. We need reliable sources and, yes, sources that say what we say they say. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Extraterrestrial_life, which already has brief entries about other solar system bodies. I'm not sure that section would stand close scrutiny either, but so long as it's there it's the obvious place for a redirect. Failing that, delete. Andyjsmith (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Extraterrestrial_life or delete. Like the others have said, I'm not sure that weasel words and vague statements are enough to support an article – especially when it can be summed up in two words: "Probably uninhabitable." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Savonneux. Double sharp (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

One editor wants to keep it while the rest want it deleted or merged/redirected. It was merged back in 17 August so it is time to delete it and close this case. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Final review


 * 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.