The result was delete. Time to put this out of our misery. Clear consensus to delete. Courcelles (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
A WP:POVFORK of Life_on_Mars#Habitability. Even if this topic should be spun off from the main article (I make no comment on that), this article is not that spinoff: the reliance on primary sources, the non-encyclopaedic tone, and the 200K of text all suggest that WP:TNT is the best option here. Ca2james (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
remove excessive and inappropriate non-free content, per WP:NFCC[1] by the administrator who is possibly the most knowledgeable about copyright and fair use on Wikipedia. Characterizing that edit as "wikignoming" is a bit misleading. Ca2james (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
But I don't feel I can write on this topic myself, if I can only mention the point of view that Mars surface is uninhabitable for present day life.To me it appears that you wanted to include much more detail than was in the original article, and to include a POV (namely, that Mars can support life) that was not in the article. That seems to be a POVFORK to me although it may not have been your intent to create one. Ca2james (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Issues with the lede
|
---|
This was originally a separate section AFTER the discussion. This apparently is not permitted which is why it was turned into a block of text. Not meant disruptively and I am very sorry! But can't change it now per WP:REDACT. Robert Walker (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Please everyone bear with me. I am in a difficult situation with a simultaneous AfD and topic ban appeal. This article was here for well over a year and nobody found any issues with it.
As a quick response I have deleted the material that got added to the lede by mistake, and done a quick rewrite. There are still several uncited sentences in the lede. They are all backed up by WP:RS but I need time to find the sources and copy them into the lede. I will have time to do more work on this after the t-ban appeal. @Ca2james: it would have been much appreciated if you had raised this issue on the talk page first. Also it would have helped if you had chosen any other occasion to do it over the last year, instead of right in the middle of the t-ban appeal. The timing was unfortunate. In our past collaboration you contributed as a wikignome. As the article progressed you agreed that I had improved it by responding to your comments [8] [9] [10] and at the end were satisfied with the article. Sadly, as soon as we were finished, two other editors from the main article came and merged it away. However we did our work there in good faith as I had been told by one editor on the Talk:Morgellons page that this was an appropriate article to write. We weren't to know that two other editors would disagree and merge it away. I was so surprised that this time you just took the article straight to AfD. I have several good articles to my name here. See for instance Hexany. I created the article and did more than 50% of the edits[11]. It was one of my first articles here. I am also one of the main editors of Planetary protection and of Regular diatonic tuning amongst other work here. Robert Walker (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The core of the problem is well beyond the format, or style. I focus on content and scientific accuracy, and the the consensus of astrobiologists. Robert is in complete denial that the surface of Mars is deemed sterile and lethal. He choses to only pick the fringe hypotheses and misrepresent them to fit his beliefs. For example he claims that the radiation at the surface is benevolent, as well as the TOXIC perchlorates on the surface, despite the extensive data on the contrary.(See: [1]) All the problems related to substance in his assay are rooted in his beliefs on Martians, the imminent Martian invasion brought upon the future sample-return, and his ignoring mainstream science. I respectfully suggest to not prolong the outcome of this AfD. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC) References
|
For your other example,
Two articles should indeed be merged if they are on the same subject with the same scope, but that is not the case here. Robert Walker (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
[PLEASE KEEP THIS AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE - we are required to add these notices at the end of an AfD page. For some reason I am not permitted to make subsections of this AfD. But I have to add this material! Thanks!
[THIS IS A COMMENT I MADE ON ONE OF THE NOTIFICATIONS THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE CLOSING ADMIN]
There is an article at AfD that may interest you. The article is here Modern Mars habitability. Please comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability I'd like to register an objection to how this AfD was advertised in the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mars by @NewsAndEventsGuy: He said:
"We have at least two articles about colonization, Colonization of Mars (created in or before 2006) and Modern_Mars_habitability (created in May 2017)"
Modern Mars habitability is not an article about colonization. It is an article primarily about the habitability of Mars for extant native Mars life. He continues
"Mars eds may wish to comment whether there is enough good material at newer article to merge, or if it should be deleted outright. So far the only "keep" WP:NOTVOTE is from the article creator, and many have suggested deletion."
I have pinged @NewsAndEventsGuy: but he has not responded and since that comment has posted we have had several new delete votes here. Robert Walker (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Corrected now, thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC) For closing editor - I thought I should mention this on the AfD page as it may be relevant if we get some last minute "keep's" enough for a possible decision of "no consensus", as it may have influenced votes between its posting and the correction here [15]. Robert Walker (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
References