Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Martian canals

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.

List of Martian canals

List of Martian canals (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)

Unsourced, of doubtful notability now that Martian canals are debunked. PatGallacher (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom - unsourced. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although perhaps not exactly in this form (and clearly with a more verbose introduction to provide context). This is a very different situation that a list of geographical features from a work of fiction. Sourcing this isn't hard. Schiaparelli and Lowell are in the public domain, easily accessible, and can be cited for the names and purported locations. This list, and its partner article classical albedo features on Mars serve to document what was believed to be the geography of Mars by astronomers of the late 19th to early 20th century. Now, obviously, they were wrong. But I think the principle of "once notable, always notable" applies (for example, luminiferous aether). We keep legitimate lists of legitimately named features on the planets of the Solar System. This is such a list... it just happens that none of the features actually exist. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - highly relevant historical information. Let's add more sources from a historical perspective, not delete this article. Skirts⁸⁹ 17:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:
  Martian canal in March 2006 at a time when references weren't thought so necessary. Do you remember the source? StarryGrandma (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep just like we're keeping the list of lunar seas. Andrew D. (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the seas are real geographical features, although we now know that they aren't really seas. PatGallacher (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Of historical interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep but probably rename, refocus, merge into article on a "real" topic, or some combination of all of them or more. "Notability" isn't technically affected by the fact that the theory in question has been debunked, but rather just makes all the older sources on it out of date and wrong: newer sources would be needed to contextualize the topic, but I don't see strong evidence that such sources do not exist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as information on an influential historic classification scheme. This is history of science, not fiction; we're not about to throw out the properties of the phlogiston either. - Needs a serious lede, and sourcing of individual names might take some digging, as most were coined by either Schiaparelli and Lowell (principally), and one might have to turn to the original sources to find out which. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wholly unsourced, may well contain OR.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic of
  WP:V issue (but not a notability issue), but given that the lists/diagrams exist, it it solvable task, and clearly someone went to great trouble to complete this list many years ago implying that it is probably right. However, all of this should no prevent the article from being kept. Britishfinance (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• As StarryGrandma notes above, RandomCritic might be able to shed some light on the origin of the list. Last seen in these here parts two weeks ago, so might yet chime in? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 February 2019 (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.