Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exopolitics

This is based on a self-published book. Much of it is WP:OR, anything that isn't should be at Alfred Webre Doug Weller (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject may be unscientific but it clearly has its proponents and whilst the article needs some clean-up it looks passable to me. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 08:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think study of hypothetical political relations says it all. Unless we can add sufficient refs to no longer violate WP:V, WP:SOAP, WP:N, I see no way we can prevent deletion. Will change if article suddenly improcves.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of hypothetical articles on Wikipedia. 80.65.250.247 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)— 80.65.250.247 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Did you forget to login (this surely isn't really your first edit)? I'm sure you know other stuff exists is not a convincing reason. Doug Weller (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain; redirect to Black Holes and Revelations if deleted Sceptre ^(talk) 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE attempt to speedy delete this page USER:Phalanxpursos besides adding the tag above, has removed the AfD tag on the article with the comment 'removed vanalism' see [1] -- can an Admin please deal with this? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just in case anyone wonders, the tag added was a speedy delete tag for this article. Now removed by a helpful admin. Doug Weller (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nomen. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there was some way to keep this lovely farrago of nonsense, but sadly I can't think of any. Delete. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see a lot of ghits, but since the term is based largely off the work of a single author (who's also made a lot of contribs to that page), I'll go with delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Nomen. --Folantin (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are not enough independent sources actually about "exopolitics," a word which "doesn't appear in any professionally-edited dictionaries" as the article notes. There are lots of sources about general, unrelated UFO-cruft that have been shoehorned in to this article - for example, a non-notable non-credit course at a community college is mentioned... even though there's no source that this course even mentioned "exopolitics." It's just sheer force of will that's kept that useless pseudo-information in the article for so long. Anyway, yeah, it's a total mess, for the reasons outlined above. <eleland/talkedits> 04:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to be a notable term. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just read it over and it looks like cruft, with few sources and a healthy dash of WP:OR Skinny87 (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2008 (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.