Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics

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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exopolitics[edit]

This article was VFD'd back in the day with a resolution to redirect to Extraterrestrial life. In May 05 the redirect was replaced by a stub of content taken from the target.

Current CSD states that speedy only applies in this case if the new article contains deleted content. Since that is not the case here, I am submitting AFD to review the new article.

For the previous VFD, view the Talk page for the article. Relevant diffs: [1] [2] [3] Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy if possible. Original research, etc. Stifle 16:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --SwordKirby537 22:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e ath phoenix 14:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this fails to garner any more votes, this should be closed as no consensus. --D e ath phoenix 14:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People may have a hard time separating a couple of the lunatics who have put forth the term from the term itself. It is in use and it has a place. Marskell 14:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong (�?喜�?�财) 15:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It is close to original research since it is based of what-if scenarios, however there are many google hits and websites about the subject and it is a valid question with serious research about the subject, even though it is all theory. Dr Debug (Talk) 19:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dan, the CowMan 05:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-close -- Simon Cursitor 08:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the above. Unless the sources are somehow unreliable, the article does not appear to be original research. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2006 (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.