Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetary engineering
- 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 Speedy Keep per WP:SK: "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion". Warden (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Planetary engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is of a poor quality, having been flagged with multiple problems from over a year and a half ago and longer. This page has demonstrated that it is unlikely to improve on its own after years of low quality. It has overcategorization/category stubs, and is completely redundant with the articles for Terraforming and Geoengineering. More importantly, it seems to be suffering from Wikipedia:FUTURE by predicting increased or decreased 'difficulty of colonizing' extra terrestrial worlds, by comparing Venus and Mars. Wikipedia can't know what is more or less likely in the future based on un-invented technology. Any claims to the contrary are forms of appealing to personal incredulity. I therefore move that this page be changed to a redirect to Terraforming or Geoengineering, or be completely rewritten. IllNeverUseThisAccount (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Concerns are over problems with the article, no problems about deletion. Just because an article is in bad shape doesn't mean it shouldn't have one. Deletions are based on notability, etc, actually. Doesn't matter what the "quality" is. TBrandley 11:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- TBrandley is actively stonewalling improvements to the article, and being disingenuous in suggesting that only notability is a factor. The page is redundant with Terraforming and has had outstanding issues for years with no improvement. Deletion is a perfectly legitimate request. --IllNeverUseThisAccount (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm right here! Who ya talking to? It is not redundant with Terraforming, and deserves its own separate page. I stand by most of what I said. TBrandley 11:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- TBrandley is actively stonewalling improvements to the article, and being disingenuous in suggesting that only notability is a factor. The page is redundant with Terraforming and has had outstanding issues for years with no improvement. Deletion is a perfectly legitimate request. --IllNeverUseThisAccount (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nomination is not appropriate for WP:AFD. Reading the top of that page "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." Thincat (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2012 (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.