Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetary human 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 redirect. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Planetary human habitability

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A hypothetical article, full of OR, few sources, and seems more like an essay or research project than an encyclopedia article. Jmlk 1  7  10:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC) If you can't contrast the ideas in seperate articles then you might as well just have a list of source references and no article(s). It is definately a WP:HEY that will benefit the encyclopedia. You're forgetting the part of the five pillars that says this is an "Edit Now" place, whereas there is nothing there supporting your "Delete Now" mentality. Improve it rather than knock it, it has great potential. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC). . . . .      PS. The Planetary habitability article is about liquid water and planet types; This encyclopedia is missing an article that talks about the limits of human tolerance to extraterrestrial conditions!! which is more important than where bacteria might survive... "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Ignore_all_rules... ...GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete appears to be completely original research and unsourced. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 14:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought, redirecting to Planetary habitability might be a better idea. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 16:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is uncited and unreferenced. I think this topic has potential to be a good article and so here is my WP:HEY.  It's been tagged as needing citations and for WP:OR since January.  I would say that if the editors of this article want to keep it, then cite the possible original research.  If not then Delete.  --Pmedema (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Planetary habitability, which is a featured article. I suppose some of the information in this article could be merged there by someone familiar with the subject. --Pixelface (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It has merit but the execution is pretty poor. Has satisfied WP:N and would be a great article with some hard work by a WP:HEY type of contributor. Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the FA Planetary habitability, which covers the same subject material and more. This article does seem to be rather heavy on lists and anecdotes rather than on treatments of the subject by reliable secondary sources; nevertheless I'm sure those editors who have worked on this article would be most welcome to contribute there. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 21:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge images, if they meet FA criteria; otherwise redirect.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Create a new section of planetary habitability about humans. BlueEarth (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete OR and I don't think it can be improved upon exclusive of Planetary Habitability. A redirect would just be an acceptance of the titular hair-splitting caused by the manifestly inferior and the unnecessary. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't voteMore of a note, the page has merit, but no real sources, i removed; 2 sections that were pure unsourced, basicly, it has merit.--Jakezing (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article needs a lot of work, admittedly, but it was created to contrast the abuse of the Planetary Habitability article, and it was left here for other editors who where interested to have their turn at improving it. If you believe you have more in common with bacteria than other people then by all means get rid of it. But it isn't Original Research anymore than the Planetary Habitiability article is.


 * good view and well said "GabrielVelasquez" Pearll&#39;s sun (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge or Redirect this article with Planetary habitability, or the member who created this article may be asked to do so .  , the aim of the member is good and bright . deleting is highly unwise . Pearll&#39;s sun (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2008 (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.