Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Ceres

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization of Ceres

Violates

• Comment. I'm not sure I understand how this is an OR issue. The article is well cited and appears to take its direction from those cites. Am I missing something? Erechtheus 23:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The given links do not provide verifiable information as of

WP:V in my oppinion. Instead these are self-published texts, which means this is obvious OR. Am I wrong? Awolf002 23:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

No -- I'm not saying you're wrong. Your argument just wasn't obvious to me so I thought I'd ask. I'll check them out a little more closely before "voting". Erechtheus 23:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! Note to self: Be more descriptive. Awolf002 00:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- This is no different from the other
  Colonization of the asteroids it would constitute a good 40% of the article; I'd say leave it as is. --AlexWCovington (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per all of the above. I see no violation of either
  WP:V. --Daniel Olsen 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete Original research based on non-reliable sources. 23:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs)
• keep @.@ the article has no POV issues, no OR. nothing wrong with it. --Pedro 01:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. :) Dlohcierekim 03:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Also see relevant discussions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Venus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of the Moon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of the asteroids, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of the outer solar system. All these articles were nominated for deletion and all were kept after all.--Nixer 05:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This Afd is only about this article. Do not confuse this as a "vote" about the general topic. My concern is that none of the cited two primary sources pass the policy rule in

WP:V regarding Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. Does nobody else see this obvious breach of policy? Awolf002 11:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak keep - not inherently deletion-worthy, though I agree with nom about low quality of sources used - why is text from a game cited as a reference? Ergative rlt 21:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is for the Colonization in SciFi. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Valid, like all the other space colonization articles. --Centauri 11:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The acceptable parts of this article are already present in
  Colonization of the asteroids, but without merging. Michael Kinyon 13:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Well cited (Could use a few more refs however) and it has no POV issues. Its an article on possible colonization of Drawf Planet Ceres. This article doesn't violate
  WP:V Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:44, 16 September 2006 (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.