mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Trans-Neptunian Objects Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colonization_of_Trans-Neptunian_Objects

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 Keep per unanimous decision. non-admin closure.--JForget 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization of Trans-Neptunian Objects

[edit]
Colonization of Trans-Neptunian Objects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball or an Indiscriminate collection of information. Is also badly written and is not notable Pheonix15 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is not a matter of WP:CRYSTAL. The article deals with the ongoing theoretical discussion of what such colonization will entail. It contains information from what some leading theoreticians have proposed. It is of scientific, educational, and encyclopedic interest. It is not random cruft. This sort of discussion has taken place for all the Colonization articles. It is as notable a subject as the other, more firmly established, survived AfD articles about Space Colonization. If Sagan and Dyson aren't notable enough as authorities, than who is? As has been said in other AfD's, deletion is not a cure for bad writing. The cure for that is clean-up, expansion and editing. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not crystal ball-ism. As mentioned above, this is about a theoretical possiblility and is of scientific interest, not so very different from colonization of Mars or the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. It has reputable sources and as for it being badly written, there is a simple solution for that - add a cleanup tag or fix it yourself! Tx17777 21:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article seems to have several mentions in good sources which were not written by Freeman Dyson. It therefore seems to meet notability requirements, and it is also part of a larger debate. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not the best of articles, but sufficient sources are present to demonstrate notability of the subject, and there is clearly scope for improvement. Jakew 23:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep per everyone else above. Article doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL in the least. Several independent reliable sources exist as well. It's not the best writing on Wikipedia, but that can easily be fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 23:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • → Snowball keep- has been covered by several independent sources. Being "badly written" alone is not a valid reason for deletion and is a bit rude. We are all just trying to help build the encyclopedia. Every little but helps; there's no need to tell people otherwise, as it is very discouraging. --Boricuaeddie 00:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep. An article on a concept given serious discussion by eminent scientists is not crystal ball gazing. It can (and should) be cleaned up and expanded. Dbromage [Talk] 00:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above. It's definatly not WP:CRYSTAL. --Hirohisat Kiwi 01:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is about something admittedly not accomplished, but the 5 references to scholarly books place it outside WP:CRYSTAL. Edison 03:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Being badly written is NEVER a reason for deletion. Fosnez 07:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong snowball keep - per everyone else. A need for expansion and a need for clean up are two facets of this article - however, neither are UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES deletion reasons - if they were clean up and stub/expansion tags would be analogous to Speedy Deletion nominations - and you cannot for a second claim that that attitude is justified! This could be a major project for multiple people, but it has potential and is of scientific interest - the references prove this. No grounds for deletion here.Caissa's DeathAngel 14:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a technical article, not "will there be a Spiderman 4" WP:CRYSTAL speculation — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and improve. Topic is obviously notable, perhaps a rename might help? Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 05:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.