Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moving the Earth

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.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite being an interesting (if somewhat fringey) concept, I couldn't much reliable coverage discussing the topic of this article. In fact, searching for "earth's orbit" and "climate change" results mostly in false positives, mostly from climate change-denying websites.

Note: This debate has been included in the

csdnew 03:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

csdnew 03:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

csdnew 03:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. No sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Check out
  WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Speedy Keep The Gurdian,New Scientist,Astroengineering, or how to save the Earth in only one billion years, Astrophysics and Space Science--Ticgame (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No content. I can summarize both all four of of those articles with the sentence "Increase the size of Earth's orbit by repeatedly whizzing large objects at high speed by the earth." The only other content I can think of that would be relevant would be all the bad things that could happen as a result. If a project materializes, we can create the article with the name of that project. In the meantime, no need to point Mike Oldfield albums at that page. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets
  WP:GNG. Sources in addition to those posted above in this discussion are available in internet searches. I added a couple of sources to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep References are good enough for
  WP:GNG. Ies (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: A somewhat crazy idea, but that is no means for deletion. Sourcing proved as per above - New Scientist and the Guardian are the most convincing. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep but watch that it doesn't attract craziness. I've removed the inaccuracies, not a NASA project, nothing to do with current global warming, really too little scientific work done on it for a scientific concept article but there are press uses of this. It would be a billion year project however. This is not fringe science but serious calculations done by experts in the field of planetary migration. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Based on the sources given above, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to
  csdnew 13:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Not something likely to happen in the near future, but a concept backed by reliable and verifiable sources. The article is small, but ample room for expansion. Alansohn (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article could be expanded upon and more sources could be added. Many reliable sources could be found via internet search that backs the concept. See no reason to delete if article can be expanded upon and improved.
  talk) 02:57, 15 March 2017 (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.