Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean colonization


 * 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. Clear consensus. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ocean colonization

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to be completely original research, and reads like someone's essay to boot. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Interesting, but this isn't Marine Science class.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 08:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's an encyclopaedia. So what makes this not an valid stub encyclopaedia article about the subject of ocean colonization?  You've offered no explanation.  Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, totally unreferenced OR at present, though a valid article on the subject could probably be written.  Ka renjc 09:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So what makes you think that the exercise of the deletion tool will get to there from here? And what makes you think that this article's linkage of ocean colonization to OTEC is something that no-one outwith Wikipedia has made, and is thus original research?  Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because at present it's somebody's essay consisting of a lot of unreferenced assertions and generalities on a subject that is still at the speculative rather than the practical stage. As it stands, it's fair to consider it OR, since the creator - or indeed any contributor - hasn't backed up any part of it with a citation from a reliable source.  My instincts are not deletionist, but without references I don't see how this is a useful stub.  If you're arguing that it's a "keep", and can point us in the direction of references to support this view, that's great - let's save it instead.  Ka renjc 11:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So your argument is a circular one: When asked what makes you think it's original research that no-one has documented outwith Wikipedia, your reply is that "it's an essay".  And of course it's an essay because it's original research.  This isn't an essay.  It's formatted as an encyclopaedia article and there's nothing personal about it in any revision.  And if you haven't checked to see what sources exist, and whether they do indeed draw a link between ocean colonization and OTEC (Hint: They do.), you cannot have any good foundation for an assertion that this is original research or an assertion that it should be deleted.  Just chucking in an opinion that something is original research, or an essay, simply because there isn't a source cited in the article is a wholesale abuse of the Project:no original research policy aiming it at something other than what it is actually aimed at, and a wholesale misapplication of Project:deletion policy to boot. It's up to editors at AFD to look for sources, not provide unresearched, drive-by, opinions that don't even use the right policy.  (And this goes for SchuminWeb and Erpert, too.)  One looks for sources that document the idea of ocean colonization to see whether they exist.  Only if things are ideas that haven't escaped their creators are they original research.  Only if there are no sources at all is something unverifiable.  And an essay is only an essay, per Project:What Wikipedia is not, if it is a personal reflection. One of your several starting points for sources on this, that very much do link ocean colonization and OTEC, is Marshall Thomas Savage's "Aquarius" idea, which was even discussed at some length in an older revision of this article, before people started repeatedly blanking it.  When you're done with him, and the people who have discussed him and "Aquarius", go and see what  and Brydon T. Wang have to say on the subject of ocean colonization (in their paper that's helpfully entitled Colonization of the ocean and VLFS technology, that comes up pretty much straightaway if one just looks for sources on the subject of "Colonization of the ocean"), which brings in very large floating structures and Thierry Gaudin.   Uncle G (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At present, Ocean colonization's content boils down to: "OC describes the extension of human settlement to the oceans; this would be done to obtain energy using OTEC, but transport is an obstacle, so it's not happening yet". Period.  The actual material about OC itself consists of unsupported assertions (the purpose of OC is to exploit the sea's renewable energy potential / the critical obstacle is inadequate transportation).  The rest comprises a description of OTEC and its potential benefits, but OTEC already has a separate, well-referenced article and is not the subject of this one.  So, an article with no history of the subject, no discussion of any current or planned projects or research, and no citations to suggest that the ideas on how OC might work and what it might be used for are anything other than individual speculation.  That's why it is currently inadequate as a Wikipedia article.  If you feel inclined to salvage it using the sources you suggest, I'm sure people would be pleased to reconsider their !votes.   Ka renjc 17:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * An article with that amount of information is called a stub, and stubs are perfectly acceptable as articles. Not that that is in fact relevant in this case.  Ironically, you seem to have missed, even though I said it quite explicitly, the fact that this article contained more information in previous versions.  For no really good reason it has been blanked and eroded away rather than rewritten and improved.  There are earlier versions of this article that are more than stubs, and that contain some of the very content that you speak of.  Deletion isn't the answer to fixing that, and restoring some of what has been blanked out.  Opining for deletion doesn't help the process.  It doesn't put deletion policy into action, and it doesn't align with how article improvement is intended to work.  The article improvement process may have become stuck in reverse gear in this particular article, causing it to shrink and cover less of the subject rather than grow and cover more, but that doesn't mean that the deletion tool is the answer.  Uncle G (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, very poor quality OR and bad tone as well. In its current state, the article doesn't help the reader at all, and if a rewrite were performed, the current content wouldn't help the rewriter at all.  AFD isn't cleanup, but this is beyond the point of cleanupability.  Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Tripe and nonsense. The fact that the article has been rewritten twice already (from a version that, as mentioned, was actually better, and gave more clue as to where the sources lay) is proof by existence that rewriting this article is possible without deletion being involved in any way.  And you clearly haven't done any research at all to determine whether this is in actual fact original research.  Name even one thing that you did to determine whether ocean colonization and OTEC were linked outwith Wikipedia.  Uncle G (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, same concept as Seasteading, but that article already exists and is well documented. Nitack (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect to Seasteading. (Assuming any of the statements can be backed with sources. The Seasteading article looks pretty good and is definitely part of the same subject. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of, perhaps. The whole of, definitely not.  Uncle G (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Uncle G, with all due respect (because you're an admin), what exactly is your problem? Why are you questioning people's delete !votes when they've clearly explained their reasoning?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 17:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your question is based upon the falsehood that you did explain your reasoning and is thus a loaded question. Not only did you not explain your reasoning you still haven't, even though I've asked you directly to.  Is this because you don't actually have a rationale supporting that assertion?  Was there simply nothing underpinning the swift drive-by statement that something is an essay?  After all, the article clearly is not an essay.  One can see from just looking at it that it's a stub, with a definition of the subject and some tidbits of information that don't cover the subject fully, as stubs are.  And that's just from simple inspection of what's right there, without even noticing the prior edit history, blanking, rewriting, and shrinkage.  Uncle G (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Merge here: This was a quite common term when I was a kid. Now it appears the neologism is seasteading. Looking through Google and Books, it appears there are approx 20x mote hits for the older term than the newer. I would recommend merging the content of seasteading into this article, instead of a redir the other way. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2011 (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.