Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mars

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 Snowball Keep. Tawker 05:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonization of Mars

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 Mars 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 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• Strong keep - this is a topic of much real-world discussion, and the article gives a pretty good account of the state of play. Article does not purport to discuss non-existent colonies on Mars, but discusses differing approaches that have been suggested, etc. There is scope for expansion of the article to discuss more of the history of the idea, its fictional treatment, etc. Metamagician3000 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — A scientific topic that has received a fair degree of research and investigation. — RJH 16:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep LeoO3 16:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as with other colonization articles. Bucketsofg✐ 17:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, per nominator. Complete speculation, plus the article itself is more argument/opinion than anything. Fluit 17:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Speculation is OK, so long as it is Professional Speculation and cited. Ted 17:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• 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 18:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --Optichan 20:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Revolución hablar ver 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the arguments above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, for much the same reasons given above. Agateller 04:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, please :) Dlohcierekim 18:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Iwalters 00:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Georgewilliamherbert 04:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep Dspserpico 04:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What the hell, there is mountains of literature on this. - FrancisTyers 16:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is a long history and extensive literature on real scientific work on the prospects of this venture. Very encyclopedic. Judgesurreal777 23:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Appropriate entry. --Davril2020 14:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Anonymous User 14:20, 12 May 2006 (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.