Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics Institute

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 none; mooted by creation of Exopolitics. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 17:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exopolitics Institute[edit]

Fails Wikipedia's guidelines for a notable organization: WP:ORG. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete borderline G4 (we deleted Exopolitics some time ago), and restore redirect to Black Holes and Revelations Sceptre ^(talk) 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability and considering the fact that we haven't made contact with any alien species, there really isn't any such thing as exopolitics Pstanton 21:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Delete - Fails notability, in my opinion. The new version of the article is complete enough to not bother me, one way or the other. ClovisPt (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge to Exopolitics, an article that is long overdue. One of the citations for this article has some legitimacy, but there's lots and lots of substantial expopolitical coverage. So, thank goodness, we have a good target to merge this to. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, exopolitics is edit protected, so I can't edit the page or merge to it. Here are some of the sources on exopolitcs: [1] "Exopolitics is a new and emerging field of study that examines the implications of possible contact between humans and extraterrestrial civilizations." A perfectly legitimate subject. Here's a book on the subject [2], here's another story with exopolitics in the headline [3], here's another article [4], it mentions these sources:

Walking A Tightrope, by Richard M. Dolan

Exopolitics or Xenopolitics? by Steven M. Greer M.D., Director, the Disclosure Project

The Day After Contact: Forecasting Reactions to Extraterrestrial Life, by Albert A. Harrison, PhD. and Colm A. Kelleher, PhD., NIDS

Exopolitics versus Exospin: A Response to Dr. Steven Greer, by Michael E. Salla, PhD.

Here are google news stories just from the past month [5].

Here's a Toronto Star story: [6], Washington Post story [7] and Wirednews [8] Vermont Guardian [9], Bloomberg [10], Rolling Stone article about the Muse (band) song about exopolitics [11]

And there's lots more. As soon as an admin. undoes the block we can get to work on this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Here's a few more sources: Edmonton Sun [12], Globe and Mail [13], Bloomberg/ Business Report [14] National Ledger [15], America's intelligence wire[16] access needed, but temporary password would work, National Ledger [17]. etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Exopolitics. __meco (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though when the article on Exopolitics is written the Institute will get a mention I am sure. For now, lack of WP:RS means it goes. Springnuts (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have requested that the exopolitics be made editable. Please hold off deleting this article so that I can redirect it and include the relevant bits in the new article. Thanks so much for you kind cooperation. I hope it's as sunny where all of you are as it is here where I am. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete this non-notable organization. No reliable sources sufficient to establish notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, I have redirected to the Exopolitics article. I hope this outcome is satisfactory to everyone involved. Just trying to be bold! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and also re-delete exopolitics as a blatant end-run around deletion policy. These nutters should find their own website, not keep polluting ours with this twaddle. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, it is not an end run around deletion. Looking into this AfD I investigated the subject of exopolitics. It did not have an article, but as it appears to be very notable and has had lots of substantial coverage I created one. In creating that article I thought it appropriate to include information on this organization. In order to do so in good faith I've tried to preserve the edit history of those who created this content by redirecting. This is a common practice quite equivalent to deletion. There is no copyvio or personal attack, so there's no reason to delete the history. If you think exopolitics is not notable or the new article on it isn't worth keeping, please nominate it for AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content with ChildofMidnight (talk)'s solution which seems to me to be the best way forward. Thanks. Springnuts (talk) 09:41, 11 January 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.