Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability


 * 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 delete. Time to put this out of our misery. Clear consensus to delete. Courcelles (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Modern Mars habitability

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A WP:POVFORK of Life_on_Mars. Even if this topic should be spun off from the main article (I make no comment on that), this article is not that spinoff: the reliance on primary sources, the non-encyclopaedic tone, and the 200K of text all suggest that WP:TNT is the best option here. Ca2james (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - it is a notable topic with many papers published on it every year, as well two conferences or conference sessions: UCLA in 2013 and NASA / LPL in 2018. The citations used are similar to those used in other Wikipedia articles in the topic area - NASA online astrobiology magazine, mainstream astrobiology journals, with preference for review papers where available, NASA press releases and so on. Much of the material in the first half is based on Nilton Renno's review paper in Space Science Reviews "Water and Brines on Mars: Current Evidence and Implications for MSL" and on the sources cited by him. The POV's are as expressed in the sources. There's also a section Modern Mars habitability which gives an idea of the range of views on this matter as in the sources given. If any particular sources are questionable or any POV's inaccurately summarized please elaborate on the talk page of the article. On the length then it's not a problem for those not interested in the topic or who find the section in Life on Mars sufficent for them, by WP:NOTPAPER. And for those that need to find out more, the thoroughness of it is valuable - I have covered all the most significant findings of the last decade in this topic area succintly. On tone, then that is easily fixed by wikignoming / copy editing if you see issues of that sort. It has been in Wikipedia now since March 2017. I am baffled that it suddenly has an AfD without prior talk page discussion Robert Walker (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As the article creator I'd expect you to !vote keep. My opinion is that the article is written as an essay and the amount of copy editing needed to bring it in line with the MOS is so substantial that it would be better to blow it up and start over. The fact that you created this article to add more detail than in the Life on Mars article confirms that this is a content fork with your POV. But let's see what the community consensus is. Ca2james (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. A few points of clarification. It was created to expand on the Habitability section of Life on Mars but not as a POV fork. If you check the edit history I am one of the main editors of the current version of Life on Mars. I've had a look at it to try to understand what makes it seem POV and I think you may be referring to the last paragraph of the lede, which I notice was unattributed. Sorry for the confusion. I just forgot to add cites to that sentence when summarizing the article. I have now expanded it slightly, with cites for the entire range of views in the modern debate on modern Mars habitability as described later on in the main body of the article. I don't see any other unattribued POV's; if you find any, please comment on the talk page. As for Modern Mars Habitability being larger than the section in Life on Mars, is common to have expanded sections like this in wikipedia, e.g. Climate change feedback which I was reading earlier today and I wanted to find out more so went to the relevant expanded section. Robert Walker (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Another factor might be the wikignome edit on 1st April to delete quotes from cites. After discussion on the talk page it was agreed that I could reintroduce the quotes that gave the views of editors on modern Mars habitability - but I had a lot on and never did this. I have now reintroduced them to some of the cites, making it easy to verify that their views are summarized accurately in that last paragraph of the lede. Robert Walker (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A point of clarification: the quotes in references were removed to remove excessive and inappropriate non-free content, per WP:NFCC by the administrator who is possibly the most knowledgeable about copyright and fair use on Wikipedia. Characterizing that edit as "wikignoming" is a bit misleading. Ca2james (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction - and just to say - the article didn't have more than is usual for fair use from any individual source, just lots of one to two paragraph quotes, from many different cites, intended to help the reader verify the cite quickly. I was not aware that was considered an issue here. deptRobert Walker (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Another point of clarification: This article is not a WP:FORK of Life on Mars. The reason is that Life on Mars covers life through the entire history of Mars. Modern Mars habitability by focusing on present day habitats can cover it in more depth. Articles can overlap if they have significant amounts of own content, as is the case here. Robert Walker (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: on "it is a notable topic with many papers published on it every year" -- then why, when I go to Google Scholar with the search phrase "modern Mars habitability", do I get exactly ZERO citations? I can't even understand what the modifier "modern" would mean for the speculative scientific concept of the habitability of Mars. "Modern", when it applies to science at all, applies to relatively recent treatments, often with a major paradim shift, of a subject that has become classical or traditional, which is clearly not the case of the habitability of Mars, a feature of the planet that's still a matter of conjecture about conditions under which no known terrestrial lifeform can survive. You say this article isn't about "Life on Mars" but about "present-day habitats." As far as anyone can tell right now, there ARE no "present-day habitats" on Mars. Yakushima (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is explained in the second paragraph of the article. For anyone who votes after reading only the first paragraph, I have now edited that to say it as well. It now reads: "Modern Mars habitability is a subject of interest to astrobiologists. The title of this article is from the title for the four day NASA /LPL conference session in spring 2017, to discuss whether Mars in its present state has any habitats for native microbes, lichens, or other living organisms. Robert Walker (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I may have confuse some of you by calling "Modern Mars habitability" a "term" - I didn't mean a technical term like "Special region" which is the Planetary protection technical term for a region of the Mars surface where Earth life could potentially survive . For this technical planetary protection term, try a Google scholar site for "Special region" Mars. More generally astrobiologists use many expressions to refer to this topic, and a search like present day Mars habitability allowing Google scholar to select the articles using its weak AI may be the best way to search. Robert Walker (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No, Robert, we are not "confused". You are in denial of the COI, OR, synthesis, bias, and gross misrepresentation of cited references. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Astrobiology Science Conference Session on the Modern Mars Habitability" -- is the heading on an announcement, not on a conference proceedings. The announcement is phrased with a glaring grammatical error (that "the" before "Modern"), so it's patently obvious that it's not the name of the actual conference. It's a single heading for what amounts to an informal announcement. Yet it's cited in your article as if it was the title of the actual conference. It is not. See . The actual conference title is "The Astrobiology Science Conference 2017 (AbSciCon 2017)", as you could see yourself by clicking on the link. I don't know whether you are being disengenuous or just sloppy. In a way, for this issue (what to call the topic), it doesn't matter. Consider what I'm looking at: a meticulous formatting of the heading of a mis-worded conference announcement as if it was the title of the actual conference, in support of the idea that "Modern Mars Habitability" is how any scientist refers, in professionally-edited RS, to your supposedly notable topic. This is simply yet more evidence for a hypothesis with years of supporting evidence on Wikipedia: your aparent lack of WP:Competence. Ordinarily, AGF requires me to believe that apparently incompetent editing owes to problems of understanding. At this point, Robert, with so many years of edits -- and tangles with other editors -- behind you, is that remotely credible? If in fact it's still somehow a simple matter of a lack of understanding, it would necessarily to owe to some chronic cognitive deficit that allows you to write on complex topics while missing glaring errors in your writing and the writing of others. Really? I'd get that looked at, if I were you. Perhaps there are medications that can help. (Honestly, I've wondered about this ever since that tangle we had elsewhere, about your claim that lunar platinum was so abundant and easily extracted that it could even become a construction material.) The problem with the AGF assumption, however, is that these errors are not randomly distributed. They are tendentious, POV-oriented, OR-oriented -- after years of being told to not do that. In this light, your excuses along the lines of "I forgot", even if true, imply, "I didn't think it was worth remembering." Any such evaluation signals, after all this time, nothing but contempt for the process. It doesn't matter how obsequious your apologies might sound to your own ears. They ring hollow in ours, and for good reason. Why should I or anyone continue to Assume Good Faith when your lack of it looks so undeniable now? Yakushima (talk)
 * And, as if adding more words could make a false statement true, we have Robert (in apparent response to my comment on the term "Modern Mars Habitability"), insisting that the Modern Mars Habitability session of a conference with a different name) was four days long. No. the session wasn't. It looks like it took place on a Wednesday and a Thursday, with an evening poster session on a Monday. At least they didn't call it "THE Modern Mars Habitability." A quick check of most of the abstracts reveals that, except for a few non-native-English-speakers, the term "modern" is mostly avoided, with a preference for "present-day" or "recent." Where "modern" modifies a term in the abstract, it almost invariably refers to specific measurements or phenomena, not to the concept of Mars Habitability. "Habitability of Modern Mars" would have been a barely acceptable title, though "Habitability of Present-Day Mars" would have been better, and, because "habitability" carries the nuance of "human-habitability" (in WP:COMMONNAME terms) "Life on Present-Day Mars" would have been better still. But hey, how about "Possibilities for Life on Mars"? Or hey, I know: "Life on Mars"! "Modern Mars Habitability" might as well have been "Habitability of Mars -- New and Improved! (by Robert Walker.)" This is a pretty obvious failure of WP:COMMONNAME. It's not how most laymen would express the actual concept, nor is there much evidence that the term "Modern Mars Habitability" has ever been used habitually except by a single session organizer for a conference in 2017. Yakushima (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I can't change the title in the middle of an AfD and nobody suggested issues with it before. It's about the habitats not the search for life, after all by Charles Cockell's work they could all be uninhabited habitats. All we have at present is that NASA, ESA (European Space Agency) and DLR (German Aerospace, Berlin) have investigating them as a top priority. E.g. Objective B of NASA's first science goal is "Determine if environments with high potential for current habitability and expression of biosignatures contain evidence of extant life.". This is the WP:POV I intended to express in both title and article. The platinum idea is from Dennis Wingo's "Moon Rush" which I find an interesting possibility; it is not my own. Robert Walker (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete for very much the reasons laid out in the nomination: a) content fork with b) a strong POV flavour and c) overly strong synthesis based on d) too much primary sourcing. A monolithic contribution like this (200k+ added in one fell swoop) does run the risk of being assessed as a bloc rather than in bits and pieces, and the overall impression I get is that this will be very, very hard to fix piecemeal. Suggest TNT, then stepwise improvement of the existing treatment at Life_on_Mars followed by spin-off when indicated. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article unfortunately points up the creator's massive loquaciousness (the lede alone is currently 14 paragraphs) and lack of understanding of how the Wikipedia encyclopedia should be written and sourced. I suggest that if the article creator wants to keep it that he turn it into some kind of eBook, Kindle book, or website, for those interested in this kind of relatively speculative (and WP:OR/WP:SYNTH) sort of material, and massive disruptive images. As Elmidae states above, this article cannot be salvaged for Wikipedia purposes at this point, so a WP:TNT is in order if at all. Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC); edited 05:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note, I got distracted by work for the t-ban appeal mid edit of the lede. It is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. It is just that I had left some extra paragraphs in the lede by mistake that didn't belong there, and because it is mid edit I haven't yet cited many of the sentences which are indeed based on WP:RS Robert Walker (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about the lede. Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was replying to your first sentence there. Robert Walker (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Since this AfD started, you have been massively adding to the lede, which was the least of the article's problems. You do not understand WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, which have nothing to do with RS. The fact is, you created and posted a massive mess of an article that as Cullen points out is 10 times longer than it should be, and as other people have pointed out, is a largely unsalvageable personal essay. You then posted a 3,500-byte notice about the lede in the middle of this AfD, even though only one person had mentioned the lede and only to say it was too long. Softlavender (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I had had no talk page comments on the article for over six months when it was unexpectedly taken to AfD on a bunch of issues that nobody had raised with me before. When I reviewed the list of issues then they seemed to me to apply mainly to the lede. Also no other section in the article has been mentioned by name, only the lede. Robert Walker (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a massively bloated personal essay based on primary sources, synthesis and original research. Any acceptable article would be no more than one-tenth this length and would concisely summarize secondary sources. The article is full of essay-like language and I see no way forward to salvage this and convert it into an acceptable encyclopedia article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete because I can't find one scholarly source that uses the term "Modern Mars habitability" (e.g. zero from Google scholar; zero, therefore, confirmation test that google scholar is working). I then opened the first 5 cites in this article, again none I could find using that phrase. I see search returns for "Mars habitability", but too few that such a fiction novel-style bloated article seems unjustified. Why not merge this with Life_on_Mars#Habitability section?, or distill any new sources down to one or at best a few paragraphs somewhere appropriate in the Life on Mars article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your thoughts would be appreciated here, given the effort you have put into the Life on Mars article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The title comes from the title of the 2017 conference session on Modern Mars Habitability, which ran from April 24–28 in Mesa, Arizona Robert Walker (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete — This assay is the final dump of Robert's POV on the subject which he was unable to insert elsewhere in Wikipedia. Indeed, he created this assay as a POV fork of Life on Mars (habitability of Mars). He has a very, very, very long history of promoting fringe views on current Martian life at the surface, and on the planet's current habitability. His favorite trick is invoking that his sources are all "modern", therefore he wants to trump all consensus, knowledge and theories about the habitability of Mars. Besides his cherry-picking of fringe hypotheses, he pours his own enthusiastic POV, spiced with obnoxious amounts of synthesis. Finally, his walls of text have un-encyclopedic writing style and format.  Be advised he also indulges in WP:CHEESE during discussions on this subject, which prompted me years ago to not interact with him, but just contain the damage of his assays. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC) (Formerly BatteryIncluded)
 * Delete POV fork as others have said. Full disclosure, I'm married to an astrobiologist who sometimes works on this topic. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) OH, OF COURSE.... When Robert created this, we already had a full article on this topic at Colonization of Mars.  I might have suggested, "Merge", but as others have often said, Robert's style is better suited to solo writing and self publishing, and I doubt a merge effort would advance without a fair bit of disruption.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Minor point of correction. Was not a POV fork when it was created. Check 19th March 2017. Robert Walker (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC).
 * Well... Modern Mars habitability looks like a spinoff of the 2017 - even the 2015 - version of that section; it also looks like it had its roots in Draft:Present day habitability of Mars, which was rejected in 2015 for being OR and reading like an essay, and where it was pointed out that Life on Mars already existed. On that Talk page, you write But I don't feel I can write on this topic myself, if I can only mention the point of view that Mars surface is uninhabitable for present day life. To me it appears that you wanted to include much more detail than was in the original article, and to include a POV (namely, that Mars can support life) that was not in the article. That seems to be a POVFORK to me although it may not have been your intent to create one. Ca2james (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is true that back in 2015 it was rejected as a POV fork of the main Life on Mars because at the time that section said the surface of Mars is uninhabitable. That is why I didn't add it.
 * In spring 2017 I was able to edit the main article to represent the WP:POV of mainstream astrobiologists, including the NASA planetary protection officers, most astrobiologists publishing in Astrobiology journal, DLR's HOME project, etc, that it is an open question whether such habitats exist. I created this article at that point in time, and it was not a WP:POVFORK at that time. Check Life on Mars#Present - 19th March 2017. After this AfD started I checked it for the first time this year, and noticed that another editor has since edited it back to say that the surface of Mars is uninhabitable, see Life on Mars. This section refers to dormant life which is indeed killed over a timescale of 500,000 years. However, NASA's Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group concluded from Curiosity RAD measurements that even the most sensitive microbes such as E.coli would survive 500 years of cosmic radiation and as you can read in their report, this is not used as a criterion for the Mars "Special regions" where Earth life may be able to survive .  Robert Walker (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

This was originally a separate section AFTER the discussion. This apparently is not permitted which is why it was turned into a block of text. Not meant disruptively and I am very sorry! But can't change it now per WP:REDACT. Robert Walker (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please everyone bear with me. I am in a difficult situation with a simultaneous AfD and topic ban appeal. This article was here for well over a year and nobody found any issues with it.


 * The problems of WP:POV are actually WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - the POV's are cited now, in the lede, including the mainstream WP:POV but previously they were only cited in the body not in the lede. Just a matter of copying cites into the lede and expanding that section a bit.
 * The problems with sourcing are just that I have not copied all the necessary cites into the lede yet. Sentences that may seem WP:OR if you are not familiar with this area are well sourced later in the article but I haven't copied the cites into the lede yet.
 * The problem with encyclopedic tone is one that I am working on. - it seems to be mainly an issue with the lede, at least, that is the only part that anyone has commented on. It was the main reason for working on the lede. I believe that it is now fixed. If you have thoughts about this do please comment on the article talk page with any criticisms or suggestions!
 * The bloated lede was an accident. I left several large paragraphs in the lede by mistake that did not belong there. They were not cited yet because it was mid edit.

As a quick response I have deleted the material that got added to the lede by mistake, and done a quick rewrite. There are still several uncited sentences in the lede. They are all backed up by WP:RS but I need time to find the sources and copy them into the lede. I will have time to do more work on this after the t-ban appeal. it would have been much appreciated if you had raised this issue on the talk page first. Also it would have helped if you had chosen any other occasion to do it over the last year, instead of right in the middle of the t-ban appeal. The timing was unfortunate.

In our past collaboration you contributed as a wikignome. As the article progressed you agreed that I had improved it by responding to your comments   and at the end were satisfied with the article. Sadly, as soon as we were finished, two other editors from the main article came and merged it away. However we did our work there in good faith as I had been told by one editor on the Talk:Morgellons page that this was an appropriate article to write. We weren't to know that two other editors would disagree and merge it away.

I was so surprised that this time you just took the article straight to AfD. I have several good articles to my name here. See for instance Hexany. I created the article and did more than 50% of the edits. It was one of my first articles here. I am also one of the main editors of Planetary protection and of Regular diatonic tuning amongst other work here. Robert Walker (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The problems with tone are mainly with the whole article, not just the lede. The problems with POV are that the whole article is an exercise in original research and synthesis. The bloating is not confined to the lede but again is a problem with the whole article. I'm not required to discuss the AfD nomination with you first. I saw the article, saw the problems, thought the problems would require more work to fix than starting over, and nominated it. Articles can be nominated for deletion at any time. That you have worked on other articles and they still exist has no bearing on this discussion. Ca2james (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Robert, no one has even mentioned the lede except to say it's too long. The fact that you can't follow/understand what people are saying and are instead posting a gigantic unnecessary/unwanted wall of text here, massively cluttering up the AfD discussion, is yet another symptom of your lack of competence where Wikipedia is concerned. Softlavender (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You did however say that the lede was too long as your first sentence. I took you to mean that was the most important point and two oppose votes were added at a time when the lede was excessively long by mistake. It is still too long I agree, I am studying MOS:LEAD and working out how to trim it down. It is very important for the issue of encyclopedic tone and WP:POV as I need to establish quickly that this is a notable subject, and that the topic of Modern Mars Habitability is a topic of major conferences, that Mars simulation chambers are built to investigate it, and it is under investigation by teams of researchers worldwide. Without that background the reader doesn't have sufficient information to assess the weight and interest of the rest of the article. Perhaps much of the rest of the lede should go into a first "Historical" section. I am working on this. I have had to do this on an article that I wrote over a year ago, and as the first ever objection of this nature. Please be patient, especially as I have a topic ban appeal to respond to at the same time. Also please don't use my talk page style as a reason to delete a notable article. It should be assessed based on the value of the article rather than talk page verbosity of its author. Thanks!Robert Walker (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The core of the problem is well beyond the format, or style. I focus on content and scientific accuracy, and the the consensus of astrobiologists. Robert is in complete denial that the surface of Mars is deemed sterile and lethal. He choses to only pick the fringe hypotheses and misrepresent them to fit his beliefs. For example he claims that the radiation at the surface is benevolent, as well as the TOXIC perchlorates on the surface, despite the extensive data on the contrary.(See: ) All the problems related to substance in his assay are rooted in his beliefs on Martians, the imminent Martian invasion brought upon the future sample-return, and his ignoring mainstream science. I respectfully suggest to not prolong the outcome of this AfD. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Robert writes "This article was here for well over a year and nobody found any issues with it." Not a legitimate argument against deletion. See WP:LONGTIME. Why DID it go so long before AfD nom? From my own experience, here's what I'd guess: It could just be that most editors who noticed the new article and who might have addressed the issues with it were already too exhausted from previous WP:CHEESE tangles with Robert. Yakushima (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Yakushima. Exhausted, yet relieved that his collection of assays were dumped at a single page that is not linked by any other article or navigation template. That was the best I could wish for as administrators have never realized (or believed) the extent of Robert's conflict of interest, bias, and synthesis, so all these years has eluded a ban. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I think this is a very interesting topic, and imho I would think that we could use an article on Mars habitability, but this article seems a little bloated, way too many details which are not really that important. Maybe key content can be flashed out to Life_on_Mars, until we get enough for a dedicated article? prokaryotes (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As explained above, we already have an article on this topic at Colonization of Mars.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out, did not see this. prokaryotes (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * and - FYI - this article is not about Colonization of Mars. It is about whether there are habitats on Mars right now for native extant martian life, and also habitats that Earth microbes might proliferate in if they are accidentally introduced, of relevance for Planetary protection Robert Walker (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , while the article naming is not exactly descriptive, Life on Mars or Colonization of Mars, is already quiet extensive and seems to cover this article scope. Thus, I would prefer to either stick to those articles, or opt for a new article dubbed Mars habitability at those article talk pages. prokaryotes (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It is permitted to have separate articles if each one has substantial amounts of its own content. In this case For your other example, Two articles should indeed be merged if they are on the same subject with the same scope, but that is not the case here. Robert Walker (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Modern Mars habitability by being focused on present day habitats can cover it in much more depth
 * Life on Mars covers life through the entire history of Mars and not just the present day.
 * Colonization of Mars for its most part is about how humans can adapt Mars to their purposes. The question of whether there are habitats for extant life on Mars is of relevance only in so far as it either adversely impacts on colonization or it assists it
 * Modern Mars habitability is about habitats that exist already in n pristine unmodified Mars. It does not cover any topics to do with colonization.
 * Delete. Much of this article seems to be copied verbatim from this 2015 blog entry by Robert Walker. And yet, the blog is not cited. Why not? Well, at this point, under AGF, I'm supposed to assume that Robert Walkerdoesn't quite understand RS and sourcing requirements on Wikipedia, and that he also doesn't understand the concept of self-plagiarism either. That's scarcely credible, considering how long he's been editing on Wikipedia, and in this disruptive style where he rather blatantly violates policies and guidelines, then injects walls of text into the ensuing discussion of the problematic behavior. Yes, even if you edit your own past writing into an article, you're supposed to say where and when you're doing that. He can't possibly NOT know that, at this point. And this is the nth time he's punched back against his misbehavior with his walls of text in discussion of contributions. Delete, AND report the misbehavior. Yes, it's chronic. And apparently incorrigible. Yakushima (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the other way around. I don't want to fill this AfD discussion with an explanation of its complex history which I also have had to unearth by chasing things up part of which I'd forgotten. The main thing is that I am the sole author. It originated in Wikipedia as a user draft. That blog you found is a minor one I have on Tumblr. I think I only put it there in the process of trying to find a place to put it where the links to the footnotes worked. I have two other online vresions that attribute the user draft correctly. So - yes I should have attributed myself here on Wikipedia, but do bear in mind, I was the sole author. I can add an explanation of what happened to the talk page of Modern Mars habitability. I have never come across policies and guidelines on self plagiarism. But surely it is permitted to copy your own Wikipedia content off wiki? And I don't think it can be a serious offence to forget to attribute yourself on Wikiedia on a minor blog post you'd forgotten about. Robert Walker (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand right - the thing is I am supposed to attribute my own past drafts in Wikipedia if I copy a draft into mainspace even if I am the sole author? Is that what you are saying? I was not aware of this rule. There are vast numbers of wikipedia guidelines and rules. I can certainly do that if it is needed, trace back its past history and post to the talk page of Modern Mars habitability with it. Robert Walker (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also the "issues with the lede" was added as an extra section at the end after the discussion. It was not inserted into the discussion. I didn't realize that you shouldn't do that. Another editor said I mustn' make a sub-heading and converted it into a block of text. After that people treated it as part of the discussion and added more votes below it. I can't edit it any more per WP:REDACT. But it was not meant disruptively. You can see what it was like originally here Robert Walker (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "I have two other online vresions that attribute the user draft correctly. So - yes I should have attributed myself here on Wikipedia, but do bear in mind, I was the sole author." At the same time, at the blog I found, you said the article included contributions from others. Quoting: " It is just about all my own work. Some parts of it started off as a deleted section from an old version of the Water on Mars article. This was the result of previous work by many editors." So are you sole author OR NOT? How are we supposed to tell what's your own writing and what's plagiarism? You keep defending yourself with "yes, maybe I should have done this", "yes, maybe I should have done that," "I didn't want to create confusion" (but in the process, generating more confusion.) You could have userfied the text on Wikipedia, worked on the draft here, and kept attribution tby other editors clear. You didn't do that. What's really going on here, notwithstanding all your apologetics, is your contempt for Wikipedia process, a process that's evolved to prevent self-aggrandizing behavior, evolved to emphasize cooperation. I have no idea why you think you're so special as to be above all the protocol that applies to us mere-mortal editors. What's certain here, though: being above all that mere-mortal stuff IS how you think of yourself. WHenever you think the world needs more of your endless treatments, you just slosh them in here. Yakushima (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry. So first, yes I did attribute the original draft there. Yes - that would be accurate then, go by what I wrote then. So, you are right. I made a mistake and I should attribute the earlier Life on Mars editors in some way.
 * None of this is intentional. This is three years ago during which time I have had many life events, including stressful events here in Wikipedia. Have you not forgotten some of the things you did three years ago? For me Wikipedia is normally a minor thing where I do a few edits from time to time a week, and then occasionally I have contributed larger articles where I felt I could contribute to the encyclopedia. Perhaps I have contributed half a dozen total since I've been here. I am not familiar with all the in's and out's of Wikipedia protocols in the way of an editor who does hundreds of edits a week.
 * I beleive it to be a good article. I added it in good faith to benefit Wikipedia. Whether you want it in Wikipedia is for other editors here to decide.
 * I do not understand what you mean. How could I have userified the old Water on Mars#Possibility of Mars having enough water to support life? At any rate the past is the past, if there was a way to do it, I did not know of it at the time. If there is a way to attribute now, do say. As you mention I did attribute the off wiki copy. I seem to have lost the attribution in the drafts in my user space, perhaps because I didn't userify the original section, whatever that might mean. Are you saying you can clone an article along with its history into your user space? If so, I did not know that or I would have done so.
 * If the article is deleted then I have a copy in an external wiki. I will add an attribution to that old version of Life on Mars to it. Meanwhile I will add an attribution to the old version of Life on Mars to Modern Mars habitability using one of the Wikipedia attribution templates which should fix this issue that you have identified with it. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per pretty much everyone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Human habitation on Mars is perforce speculative, but a page on how it can be achieved is worth having, & it's not like there's a huge space issue (unlike a paper encyclopedia). Issues of tone, POV, OR, whatever can be sorted out; it's not like every page created is a GA candidate from edit one, after all (or even edit 1000). Yes, as an SF buff, I have a bias, but don't think it governs; I happen to believe establishing human presence on Mars is stupid from a delta-v standpoint for the foreseeable future. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  08:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not an article about HUMAN habitation on Mars. Did you read the article before voting? Yakushima (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is my bad. I skimmed the article when this first came up, and have spent 70% of my wiki time the last few days dealing with Roberts walls of text... I admit I got carelessly confused and posted the false article scope at some other venues.   Apologies to Trekphiler who probably followed one of those comments here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes - don't know if this is something that is taken ccount of in AfD closing decisions, but you can tell by comparing names that a lot of the delete votes here are from people who were involved in a simultaneous topic ban discussion - see my declined appeal. They are not topic specialists. Typically they have no knowledge of Biology or Microbiology or Planetary protection or Astrobiology, or of what counts as suitable sources for this topic area. They voted based on my talk page behaviour during the topic ban appeal amd matters discussed there on an unrelated topic area. Of the complaints against me on this article, the only one many of them are able to judge on is encyclopedic tone. Robert Walker (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * TREKphiler: Yakushima is spot on. This article is neither about nor intended to be about "human habitation" or "how it can be achieved". A quick read of Robert Walker's comments and the article sections suggest that his article is RW's synthesis about "life supporting habitats on 'modern' Mars or somewhere deeper beyond the surface layers, and whether/what forms of life already exist on it". Robert Walker's article uses publications that do not appear to have the word "Mars" or "planet" or "astro*"-related content (e.g. Zuo et al, Molecular assessment of salt-tolerant, perchlorate- and nitrate-reducing microbial cultures, pmid|24150694 see below). FWIW, this is not my field, for full disclosure, and I comment here from wikipedia's content policies perspective. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, when WP:synthesis is not enough, he often adds fluff-references that do not support the statement but gives the impression that his own POV has reliable references. The whole assay is compromised with misrepresentation and out of context references. It is not salvageable. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Small erratum: That PMID doesn't point to Zuo et al.; you want . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Thanks for the correct PMID, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Since we are in an ANI proceeedings related to Robert Walker, I provide the link of the full paper which I checked for "Mars, planet, astro*" etc to conclude RW has continued WP:OR-synthesis. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Robert is not a biologist either, so his attack strategy to dismiss other people's feedback is null. I am a biologist and I did work in astrobiology and I can say that Robert has been the biggest liability to Wikipedia in this subject for many years. And no, the problem is not limited the title, or a misunderstanding, or the length of the introduction, or the absolute lack of encyclopedic tone, but his pervasive POV and synthesis of biased BS, and his using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote his blog and beliefs. Reality check: the surface is deemed sterile, known in situ to be bathed in radiation and known in situ to be toxic (10x more lethal than thought 2 years ago! See: ) yet, he even moved up to the introduction: "The environment on Mars potentially is basically one giant dinner plate for Earth organisms". Robert's shameful assay runs amok with things like these in defiance of actual scientific knowledge and consensus. His Martian hysteria has persisted for too many years in several Wikipedia articles, and I had to cleanup every time, and weather the unavoidable dramas and walls-of-text. He is not here to build an encyclopedia, and I strongly suspect Robert's only interest in this subject is to mimic his blog content in Wikipedia to give himself some credibility. Robert is unable to understand that this is not his blog, and that we are not just fans talking about his "publications", despite the self-reminder he added at his user page, which brings the need to remark that WP:Competence is required. I must admit that I felt somewhat relieved when he gathered all his assays on Mars and dumped them here, in a single article, because I thought his chronic damage to Wikipedia would be contained in a single page. I just have no more energy left for him and undergo the process of a Mars topic ban, but I am willing to support it and find relevant diffs if the community takes it that way.   Rowan Forest (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC) (formerly BatteryIncluded)
 * Agree with Rowan that CIR is the real issue here... Same problems led to an indef subject Tban (on Buddhism) which AN recently refused to lift.  If we had a reason to think this user is improving their skills at collaboration and writing under our policies, there might be hope, but I hate to just add a Tban on Mars and have these problems migrate to some other subject area.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just read this from . If the WP:NOTHERE attitude persists in other topics, the only path to avoid further disruption would be a site ban. We're not there yet, but I'd urge to reflect on his goals and their compatibility with the WP:five pillars and other Wikipedia policies. — JFG talk 17:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Correction, we've already been through this with the Buddhism topic area. From that perspective, the same attitude is "persisting in other topics" (i.e., this one) so I think we are indeed already there.  An ANI complaint is now pending.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OR and WP:TNT. Agree as Cullen puts it.  massively bloated personal essay based on primary sources, synthesis and original research.-- D Big X ray  15:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete – Definitely an interesting subject, but as many others have said, this is more an essay than an encyclopedia article. The main contributor should get a blog or publish a book. — JFG talk 17:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Appears the author already has a blog with much the same content. This makes the article a massive WP:COPYVIO in addition to the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues. WP:DYNAMITE is the only option. — JFG talk 17:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The article originated in Wikipedia as a user space draft. The copies off-wiki attribute the draft. There is no WP:COPYVIO involved. Robert Walker (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see anything salvageable here. There may be interest in an article describing the potential biologically habitable zones on Mars, but this article isn't it. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 17:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. In addition to too much speculation, the article is framed so that it cannot endure. This is an essay that has potential meaning only in the present and will become out of date; it does not belong in an encyclopedia. (Arriving in discussion from Talk:Biology.) BiologicalMe (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as a heap of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * delete this is not a WP article but rather an essay. Belongs perhaps in Wikiversity.  Just not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems almost redundant to add this now, but, while I'd normally recommend at least trying to clean this up, there's just so much of it, and such a high proportion of it is problematic that TNT is really the only option we are left with. Valid enough topic, of course, but it's covered elsewhere on WP, and covered better. (Arriving in discussion from Talk:Biology.) Anaxial (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

List of projects for notifications
[PLEASE KEEP THIS AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE - we are required to add these notices at the end of an AfD page. For some reason I am not permitted to make subsections of this AfD. But I have to add this material! Thanks!
 * Talk:Colonization_of_Mars
 * Talk:Planetary science
 * Talk:Astrobiology
 * Talk:Planetary protection
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mars
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

[THIS IS A COMMENT I MADE ON ONE OF THE NOTIFICATIONS THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE CLOSING ADMIN]

There is an article at AfD that may interest you. The article is here Modern Mars habitability. Please comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability I'd like to register an objection to how this AfD was advertised in the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mars by He said: ""We have at least two articles about colonization, Colonization of Mars (created in or before 2006) and Modern_Mars_habitability (created in May 2017)""

Modern Mars habitability is not an article about colonization. It is an article primarily about the habitability of Mars for extant native Mars life. He continues ""Mars eds may wish to comment whether there is enough good material at newer article to merge, or if it should be deleted outright. So far the only "keep" WP:NOTVOTE is from the article creator, and many have suggested deletion.""

I have pinged but he has not responded and since that comment has posted we have had several new delete votes here. Robert Walker (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was pinged at bedtime. I corrected my mistake at breakfast.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Corrected now, thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC) For closing editor - I thought I should mention this on the AfD page as it may be relevant if we get some last minute "keep's" enough for a possible decision of "no consensus", as it may have influenced votes between its posting and the correction here. Robert Walker (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert, the one Keep vote besides your own was from someone who was confused, who thought the article was about human habitability or colonization. When his error was pointed out, he responded, admitting error. Minus that vote, and minus yours, it's solidly "delete" here. So, if anything, your main hope of getting any more Keep votes is that yet MORE people will be confused about what the article actually covers, under the assumption that you wrote about human habitability of Mars. Yakushima (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I follow due process here and have no wish to get keeps through mistaken votes. The Keep you mention, in my view, and surely for the closing admin, should be discounted. Robert Walker (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2018 (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.