Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Preservation Treaty

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 merge to Outer Space Treaty. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space Preservation Treaty[edit]

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

No such treaty. No evidence of notablitity of the proposal. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It certainly sounds like a real proposed treaty, but I find virtually nothing on Google (one of the first hits is to some conspiracy nut website.) So, unless someone has some reliable sources, I think we've gotta delete.JoelWhy (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Outer Space Treaty. Sources indicate its a proposed addendum/alteration to that. Seems notable in that (1) received press coverage and (2) NGOs and member of Congress, albeit a low-ranking representative, introduced it. Because its all in the context of evolving space law, merging it with the OST article is probably the best way to go. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (2) There is a huge number of weird nonnotable things put through the Congress, a sheer waste of taxpayers' money. (1) Press coverage is from weird press. Again, notability, WP:UNDUE. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (1) If taxpayer's money is wasted, that is a matter of public concern. (2) We are not interested in whether the sources are "weird" (I am not even sure what that means), we are interested in whether they are reliable. (3) As to notability, Google Books does produce some results for "Space Preservation Treaty", including this, this and this. James500 (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Outer Space Treaty for same reasons mentioned above, the two treaties go hand in hand, this one if passed would most likely be incorperated into the OST treaty, the topic is notable enough to be mentioned in OST, just not enough to stay as its own article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge perhaps one small sentence to the parent treaty; this is utterly non-notable outside of the OST's context. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Outer Space Treaty, seems the most logical and sensible thing to do here in this case. :) — Cirt (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Outer Space Treaty per the reasons cited above. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:04, 18 April 2012 (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.