Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First planet

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 no consensus. Bulk nominations can be problematic, and this one includes articles pages as well as disambiguations pages so makes deciding an outcome even more difficult. There is no clear consensus here, and I suspect that relisting as presented won't make matters any clearer. I suggest that individual pages are nominated, or simply dealt with bodly as appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 03:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First planet[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

This is not a proper dab page. Perhaps it and most of its eleven brethren (several do have legitimate dab entries) could be consolidated in a single article, but individually, no. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it a proper dab page? Serendi ^pod ous 07:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PTM gives the example of Zoo (disambiguation). It doesn't list every zoo. Planet (disambiguation) doesn't enumerate every object that somebody defines as one. IMO, Fifth planet has two good entries: Fifth planet (hypothetical) and Fifth Planet, with Planet V worthy of being in a See also section. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So how would you clarify this? Serendi ^pod ous 09:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure. If you're going for a narrow scope, maybe Geocentric versus heliocentric ordering of planets? For something more ambitious, possibly Ordering of solar system planets, to include mass, density and other properties? The first suggestion seems a bit on the trivial side to me, and I'm not confident that this type of ordering really meshes well with physical properties in the second case. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole lot. These are not proper disambiguation pages. "nth planet" is not a topic in itself. We have an article automobile but we don't have articles like red automobile or blue automobile. JIP | Talk 09:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly obviously, third planet should not be deleted, but simply redirected to the existing disambiguation that it does a poor job of duplicating at 3rd planet. I recommend taking that out of the nomination, and speedily redirecting, otherwise this discussion is going to be another bulk-nomination-of-differing-articles disaster. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Huuh? I didn't nominate third planet. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes you did. Uncle G (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see what happened. I did that before Serendipodous started adding to it, and then somebody removed my nomination without asking. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removeed and redirected Third planet. Serendi ^pod ous 09:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, what you actually did was copy and paste the contents of 3rd planet to Third planet, and then redirect 3rd planet; you didn't "remove" anything (except the {{afd}} template that had been on Third planet), and you didn't redirect Third planet. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't have the authority to move over redirects, and the word was more formal than the abbreviation. Serendi ^pod ous 20:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to get off the issue of third planet — Which I said would just muddy the waters here, didn't I? — and back to the articles at hand, I report that I've tried to come up with similarly easy solutions to the remaining disambiguations, but haven't been able to. I had high hopes for Planet 9, but even that doesn't have anything yet. Uncle G (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the second planet for Klingons? Jokes aside, these pages do have a potential for expansion]. Locador (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that the primary meaning of the first nine is the heliocentric Solar System model. In other words, redirect "First planet" to Mercury (planet), and "Third planet" to Earth, while moving the existing disambiguation page materials to their "Foo (disambiguation)" titles, and keep the rest. bd2412 T 22:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no harm in keeping them for historical purposes. The fifth planet from the Sun (or Earth) very much depends on how you define a planet. The definition has varied a lot over the last 500 years. -- Kheider (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 03:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (except Third planet) We have here an example of a set of Dab pages which contribute nothing useful and if anything help to increase confusion rather than clarify anything. The definitions are unclear and the confusion sown is apparent from the discussion above - deletion is the only remedy. ~~Third planet seems to have been included here by accident and remains a useful Dab, unlike the rest.~~ Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth planet (disambiguation) and Tenth planet (disambiguation) have some value to Wikipedia given the recent history of Pluto and Planet X. -- Kheider (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The references are neither common enough or ambiguous enough to generate proper disambiguation pages. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep each one, and improve them according to their needs. To say that these articles will never amount to anything doesn't seem right. Lets address specific issues rather then deleting everything. Fotaun (talk) 17:52, 15 March 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.