Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terraformer

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 of the debate was redirect to Terraforming --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terraformer

NN, D. ComCat 01:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability. -- SCZenz 03:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Unless notability is asserted, redirect to terraforming. DS 03:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per DS--inks^T 04:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Good redirect suggestion - make it so.  BD2412 ^talk 05:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Hopefully an occupation in three or four centuries :). Marskell 20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Demogroup apparently w/ only one release (not listed in article), Future Crew they weren't. Above suggestions to redirect are incorrect; 'terraformer' might indeed be a groovy job in 3 centuries, but it isn't now. (Unless you have a cite? :) A non-existent profession isn't notable, is it? Eaglizard 09:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Terraforming itself is hypothetical but extensively discussed on. Terraformer seems a plausible redirect. Redirects are cheap—they don't have to be notable in themselves. Marskell 00:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree; yeah, redirects are cheap, but server space is not the cost I worry about when we include what amounts to science fiction. My own (admittedly idiosyncratic) notability test includes: would it appear in World Book or Brittanica?Eaglizard 04:44, 9 October 2005 (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.