Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of the outer solar system

Colonization of the outer solar system

NOTE: See more extensive, parallel debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury.

This article is speculative and unencyclopaedic in my opinion. If colonization of the outer solar system should ever occur we would want an article on it, but I don't think we need one right now. We do not try to predict the future. Worldtraveller 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Can be encyclopedic if all of its information comes from reputable sources (NASA studies, for example). There is nothing preventing us from having articles about future events or even presenting predictions about future events as long as we are not the originators of the predictions (they come from a reputable source). —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Monday, 8 May 2006 @ 11:25 UTC
• Keep. siafu 12:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep with cleanup - or belongs in space colonization Crum375 13:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was an expansion of space colonization, but was split off because that article became overly large.siafu 13:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does make sense to have a separate section for the solar system, but this needs a clean up - I changed my opinion above to 'keep' with cleanup Crum375 14:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - legitimate article on the idea of colonisation of outer solar system. Any faults are not reasons for deletion. Metamagician3000 13:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — speculative entries need citations or removal. — RJH 16:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep LeoO3 17:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as with other colonization articles. Bucketsofg✐ 17:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, per nominator. Fluit 17:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In particular, see the very first sentence: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If the 2028 Olympics are specifically listed as unencyclopedic (because it would contain nothing but speculation), then the colonization of other planets is even less encyclopedic. Kafziel 17:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Speculation is OK, so long as it is Professional Speculation. Needs work, particularly with citations. Ted 17:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - because it (ideally) discusses objective, factual information about the great deal of past and current commentary and technical research on these ideas, a great deal of which has been funded by NASA and other space organizations and which has been carried out in peer-reviewed scientific literature, the record of which is entirely a matter of fact, not speculation. The first peer-reviewed scientific paper on colonizing another planet (by Carl Sagan in the prestigious journal Science, on the potential to terraform and colonize Venus) was published almost fifty years ago, and such literature has been growing exponentially since then. Such factual information on past and ongoing research and commentary is no more speculative in nature than is any subject of scientific or engineering research. The Colonization of Mercury page is so far sparse and lacking in sources, but those should be remedied by further work, not by trashing a valuable subject. See also e.g. Terraforming, Planetary engineering, Robert Zubrin, Gerard O'Neill, Martyn J. Fogg, The Mars Society, The National Space Society, the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Carl Sagan, Wernher von Braun, Verein für Raumschiffahrt, and the links from these articles. And this is besides the further value of the entries to provide factual information on the idea of colonizing these planets in literature and the arts and as a subject of anthropological, cultural and sociological interest. See also more extensive debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury, and see Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization. - Reaverdrop 18:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but spruce it up.' :) Dlohcierekim 18:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lankiveil 00:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Georgewilliamherbert 04:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]