Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (2nd nomination)

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 Okay kids, we've had our fun. April Fools' Day is over. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth

See my vote below for proof of hoax. John Bulten (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The last few years have seen great progress in the field of Astronomy; in particular more planets are being discovered all the time. One obvious corollary of this is that just as we have notability criteria for people, we are going to need some criteria for notable planets - they really can't all have articles. So to start the ball rolling and hopefully set a non-contentious precedent I'd like to propose the Earth for deletion for the following reasons:

  • Our principal competitor only gives it a two word microstub entry: "mostly harmless".
  • None of our major telescopes have actually reported seeing it.
  • I'm certain the Hubble could see at least part of it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it can take pictures of the Earth, where are the pictures? There are none. Please take your OR elsewhere! Tx!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As planets of its type go it's really extraordinarily average (gravity = 1.000, year = 1.000 years). ϢereSpielChequers 01:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these filthy... Earth-ians and their filthy... come on, Treelo, help me here, I'm trying to make some sort of contrived Invader Zim reference. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)— TenPoundHammer (talk • contribs) is a filthy deletionist so of course he'd say that, harrumph.[reply]
  • Comment Um... my squeedly-spooch? I'm all out. treelo radda 02:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to have been written entirely by the inhabitants themselves. Relies solely on self-published sources. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cos it survived the last AfD lol - filelakeshoe 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of sources independent of the subject matter. All sources of this planet come from earth, so those sources cannot be reliable. Tavix (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sephiroth and Delete using "Meteor". MuZemike being orangeOr is Orangemike being MuZe? 01:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obliterate with lasers - well, why not? Alternative: send in the Martians. the_ed17 :  Chat  02:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Salt per above. TheAE talk/sign 02:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:IDONTLIKEIT - it's original research. The earth is flat [1]. Royalbroil 02:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Come on, whoever heard of Earth? Totally made up and maybe even demolished to make way for a hyperspace bypass being in that end of the Sector 9 plural zone. treelo radda 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I don't drive a Fjord. I drive a Chjevy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to the fjords is unverifiable, though; some sources place them in Scandinavia, others in Africa. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too many planets already Chzz :  Chat  03:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or merge with dwarf planet. Was going to recommend this AFD myself. I don't see any sourcing in favor of this thing being notable, but note C. S. Lewis on its nonnotability (emphasis added): Why does Dr Waddington concentrate on ... a temporary phase of organic existence in one planet? This is 'geocentric' .... surely we should notice what Nature is doing as a whole; and Nature as a whole, I understand, is working steadily and irreversibly towards the final extinction of all life in every part of the universe, so that Dr Waddington's ethics, stripped of their unaccountable bias towards such a parochial affair as tellurian biology, would leave murder and suicide our only duties. JJB 04:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge with Soil. Unnecessary synonymous article. Deor (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Arda, since this is a content fork of Arda. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a bunch of Randians and homeopaths. Zagalejo^^^ 06:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no third party sources: all references are from citizens of said planet. Seems to hint at OR as well. spǝǝpspɹoʍ3100ʇnɯɐɥɐq 06:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only the external links. Especially the one at the top that I put there yesterday. In fact, we might as well write an entire article about it. Themfromspam (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 300 (film). This topic was mentioned in the movie and by WP:PRESERVE we should save this information. The film's article would be at a loss without this valuable background material. ThemfromSPARTA!!! (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete where we are from this planet isn't notable at all. Themfromspace (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:SNOW (no way this will be deleted and even if it is a joke, it will be restored promptly). Anyway, passes WP:N and WP:V among pretty much everything. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An Iota? Isn't that the one-seater "personal car" introduced by Toyota some years back? Regarding the WP:SNOW, keep in mind there's plenty of snow on earth. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't get it. It's supposed to be ironically funny to have a "serious" keep from me even in an obvious joke nomination...  ;) Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve references - I can't find a single verifyable reliable source which was not written by someone involved in the project. I mean, come on, if it's nearly as important as the article is making it out to be, there has to be something.... ...anything... which was published somewhere else and makes note of it. We have NPOV and COI problems up the wazoo on this article. Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demolish due to urgent need for bypass. -- LondonStatto (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The "mostly harmless" argument is often cited by deletionists as insufficient. I'm generally an inclusionist, so I say "harmless" is sufficient grounds to keep, and "mostly harmless" is even more notable than "harmless". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the nominator states that '[o]ur principal competitor only gives it a two word microstub entry: "mostly harmless"', he has clearly failed in the requirements of WP:BEFORE in only examining the older edition of the Guide; the new revised edition is much expanded, including a section of tips for travelers (get a job as a New York taxi driver; it doesn't matter if you don't look human). JulesH (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per MuZemike, but delete using "Supernova". — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no independent sources. – ABCD :  Chat  08:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destroy using one of the methods at http://qntm.org/?destroy — Dandv (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send for the Vogons. Although what the Martians will attack is unknown. Plus there's some HUUUUUUGE Wp:COI issues here as well - all contributors and their sources are from Earth. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 08:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the comment below, This article will be deleted. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and there's also huge WP:COI issues as well (none of the contributors or sources come from anywhere other than Earth). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • EX-TER-MIN-ATE -- Dalek Parton 99:57 (DT)
  • Delete The Earth is a lie. yngvarr squeedly spooch 10:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is typical of Wikipedia's systemic bias in favour of humans. I mean, I'm aware that this article has been a labour of love for devoted fans of the source media, but these days, planets are ten a penny. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, these days they're only 8 a penny.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move - It's getting too hot where it is.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    see; A World Out of Time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but cleanup. Chelseaboy (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep this source talks about Earth and is supposedly at least inspired by a non-earth being. Though the article contradicts much of what the source says and should be rewritten accordingly. Dendlai (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn planetcruft *Dan T.* (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- as an example to others. Its not too remote to make an effective demonstration. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vyvyan Basterd - OR, no independant sources at all. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per WP:JUSTAVOTE. Redfarmer (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Earth, delete the humans before they kill the place. See also; The World Without Us. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was going to be deleted anyway to make way for the hyperspace bypass. Æetlr Creejl 15:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nuke the planet from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Clearly, that dirt clod out in space is worthless junk anyway, right? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but since the page is protected, who can add a template to it?--Jimmy xu wrk (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blow it up with the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's my home, it's very pretty at the right time of day on the surface, and it's where I keep all of my stuff. Why would you want to blow this place up? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'm sure we can all agree that this Earth doesn't inherit notability from the Sun, so it makes much more sense as a subsection. --Gwern (contribs) 15:47 1 April 2009 (GMT)
  • Speedy delete - The vast majority of editors have a huge COI. Neurolysis :  Chat  15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Huh, I'm going to guess the smaller minority is some Vulcans watching for when we achieve warp speed stellar travel. treelo the cake is a lie 15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Everyone likes snow.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After early February 2009, I'd have to agree. My friend Rachel H would have to agree - it caused her to break her wrist. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipidea has clear guide lines about mostly harmless things: WP:MOSTLYHARMLESS: Just because having an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should be kept and goes on to say: "it does not do any harm" claim, and its rebuttal, is at the center of the philosophical editing debate of inclusionism versus deletionism. For more information and arguments, see the Meta articles Inclusionism and Deletionism.. Deep thoughts. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy nuke
  • Promote Mars to Featured Planet
  • Neutral We Vulcans don't really care one way or the other what you do with the little blue marble. — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destroy. It is obstructing my view of Venus. Where's the kaboom? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep; this article is informative about the geological, chemical, and biological makeup of Earth, something that most Earthlings are underinformed about. Why don't we just delete the main page? Tezkag72 (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, hoax: If you look up the so-called "independent reliable sources" adduced by the inclusionistas, such as Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Vulcans, Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius, Arda, Ork, Melmac, etc., you will find they have each been perpetrated by earthlings as attempts to create apparent "independent" sources. Widespread as the hoax may be, WP is above it all when it comes to this kind of chest-pounding attempts at conferring notability. WP:SNOW already so we can get on with WP:DRV. John Bulten (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking previous comment as obvious sock and duplicate vote of another user, above. JJB 17:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Quit WP:STALKing me. John Bulten (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, that's rich. I'm stalking you, you say? I'm in the middle of writing an WP:RFCU right now, you want me to upgrade it to WP:RFC/U? JJB 17:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - The Wikimedia Servers are located there. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I've been mulling a career change anyway. -God {damn those • buses} 17:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Earth source for Earth
  • Keep, not all our sources come from there — see the attached picture, based on a photograph taken well away from Earth. Nyttend (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look closely, it says "United States" - ergo making it an Earth-based source. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sun. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - written by its own inhabitants, reeks of conflict of interest if you ask me. Get rid of it! GiantSnowman 18:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this planet has four memebers of the Green Lantern Corps already. Libertyernie2 (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per obvious WP:COI; sources cited are all written by persons living on that planet. Mandsford (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak comment I don't mean to go WP:OTHERSTUFF, but we just AfD Pluto a while back... if it doesn't meet inclusion as a planet, I don't know how we could keep this one as well. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaints and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now. You say you've never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh for heaven's sake mankind, it's only four light years away you know. I'm sorry but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs that's your look out. Apathetic bloody planet—I've no sympathy at all. --Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (poetry) 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am concerned that this debate is getting way too civil and that there is too much good faith being demonstrated. Too many people are behaving reasonably, calmly and courteously; and there is an ominous trend of editors showing consideration and respect for each other. I am concerned by the number of appropriate comments.... Mandsford (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I feel much better now. Mandsford (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surely there is a certain notability when one considers the number of gods that claim to have created the place? Obviously these claims are not acceptable in themselves as evidence (COI and OR), but the number is quite large. Of course, there might be sockpuppetry or deopuppetry going on, and the number of actual gods involved may be far less. Peridon (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Elephant They carry it, don't they? Peridon (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - it's turtles all the way down that supports Earth. Although I don't think anyone knows what the bottom turtle stands on. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naah - turtles don't stand on turtles, they swim... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down#In_culture Peridon (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conquer and replace with parking-structure planet. -Sketchmoose(sandwiches/rubber piggy) 20:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has an important non-recurring role in Hitchhiker's Guide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge (smash-merge) with Mars, Sun, and Black hole, in that order. Dinoguy1000 :  Chat  20:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simple as that FMAFan1990 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move this page to Wikipedia:Request for death/Mankind -- iMatthew :  Chat  21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Simpsons takes place on this planet, and who could possibly deny that that makes the subject notable? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing I understand, according to a reliable source, that its inhabitants are in the process of deleting it, so all we have to do is wait (anyone interested in filling out a stub or two in the meantime?) & the problem will take care of itself. But don't worry, maybe this will pass on its 9th nomination. -- llywrch (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why? Global warming. We are constantly screwing ourselves over by burying the planet under our crap. We don't need this planet any more. Now, excuse me as I get into my spaceship and escape the poison gases.  Marlith (Talk)  22:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When free oxygen first appeared on Earth, it was a destructive pollutant to much of the life. All the current inhabitants are doing is preparing the place for the next lot - whatever they will be. I would say I'd prefer not to know, but as I won't anyway, I would. Peridon (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Hey, I found this interesting documentary short about why Wikipedia is harmful to education and freedom. I think some of you might be interested in it. It can be found at Why Wikipedia Must be Banned  Marlith (Talk)  02:45, 2 April 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1220462546"