Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiplanetary Age


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Multiplanetary Age

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

made-up terms with no backing from sources. Redirected synonyms should be deleted as well:, ,. To the article creator: I understand your enthusiasm but this has no place in an encyclopedia until the subject is seriously studied elsewhere. See WP:My first article and WP:PSTS for hints. — JFG talk 15:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If something doesn't have a name, does that automatically mean that it's not important? For example: Someone could discover new living organism, but won't know to what category put it in and for that reason won't know how to name it. Does that mean that the living organism isn't worth reading about on Wikipedia? --Pek~enwiki (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is Elon Musk's quote: I think we're at the dawn of a new era and it's-- I think it's going to be very exciting. What we're hoping to do with Space X is to push the envelope and provide a reason for people to be excited and inspired to be human. --Pek~enwiki (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that this perspective is not exciting; SF writers have filled whole libraries with potential stories of space colonization and its implications. Perhaps this is the article you would like to expand? Your new terms for this old concept are being rejected per Wikipedia policy, not per lack of interest about the subject. Please read WP:ENC and WP:NOT to learn about the scope of this encyclopedia, and don't be discouraged of making further contributions! — JFG talk 22:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well okay, I guess I now agree on the deletion process as well. Maybe we should come back to this subject when people actually land on Mars and start civilization and when online sources start seriously considering this a new era, hopefully even giving the era some name we could use. --Pek~enwiki (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Notice how the 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica makes no mention of the Wright brothers in its lengthy Aeronautics article, 8 years after heavier-than-air machines actually flew. Not a word on the jet set age either, obviously… — JFG talk 22:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC) (Well, actually early airplanes and aviation pioneers are mentioned in the Britannica Flight and Flying article, which has not been transcribed to Wikisource yet, see wikisource:Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/536) — JFG talk 22:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Plenty of deletion causes to choose from here: WP:NEO, WP:CRYSTAL, or simply the utter absence of sourcing. Reports on Musk's aspiring press conference do not confer notability to a term (or terms...) describing the sociological age or era that would happen if he (or others with similar goals) succeed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:MADEUP, sorry. Blythwood (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry Pek, it's not notable. Your idea can be real, and I agree with your concept, but WP makes articles to document notable public information, not personal names for concepts. Jergling (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep.Quantanew (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2016 (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.