Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homo Spaciens

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homo Spaciens[edit]

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

Delete This is original thought, with no reliable sources that I can locate, and also fringe "science". Article was proposed for deletion with reason "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or a crystal ball", and PROD notice was removed by the author of the article without explanation. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is based upon many reliable sources which can easily be located, both in libraries and on the internet. Although it may seem not as scitific content, definitely it's space literature, well know, and reputed documented from many scientists and other authors. Please advise before its deletion. Thank you. Homospaciens (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homospaciens (talk • contribs) 15:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete heavy WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:Original research, term doesn't seem to be in wide use in this sense, if online search is anything to go by. Invitrovanitas (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an obectively neutral article, with no original thoughts other than the ones made from the authors mentioned. Homospaciens (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR WP:MADEUP WP:NOTESSAY WP:BALL. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 16:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Homo Spaciens, is a term commonly used in the space exploration field, similar to space colonization, space settlement, and others (by the way all of these terms are published in wikipedia). I encourage its publication. Thank you. Homospaciens (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homospaciens (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR and OSYN. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all previous delete comments. Basically, Homospaciens, if you want to maintain that this is notable, you are going to have to produce many more reliable sources actually using this term in this manner. LadyofShalott 01:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, I have added three online external references (see links below) from reliable sources (articles from the Washington Post, from the European Space Agency, and from John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences) that prove that, Homo Spaciens, is a term commonly used in the field of space exploration to explain our future evolution. Then, this is not an original thought, nor a review, or an invention, and it's been there since many years. Therefore, I encourage all editors to re-consider their position before recommend its deletion. Thank you. Homospaciens (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak neutral, leaning towards delete Having reviewed the article, as well as the new sources added, I still have some concerns. The german-language book-length reference seems a positive step in the right direction, but in general, the entire article seems like its been cobbled together from very disparate sources to advance a position which none of them individually support. Yes, I can see that the words "Homo spaciens" to describe the putative "next step in human evolution" is used occasionally, but I also cannot see where the existing sources support the lengths that this article takes it. In other words, I still don't see this as a serious topic, either from a cultural point of view, or a scientific one, and beyond just "a term some people use" I can't find any other reason to keep this article around. --96.255.208.104 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The expression "Homo spaciens" certainly exists, but this article is an original synthesis, producing a result not supported by the sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your positions regarding the fact that this article has been synthesized from the sources cited. But, I do not agree with the statement that "the result is not supported by the sources". Other space topics, such as space colonization, space exploration, and many more have been synthesized in a similiar way. Anyway, according to my point of view, and after reading all the sources cited, and being in the space industry for more than a decade, this is my best approach to give an accurate view regarding this topic. I would love to see, instead of simple criticisms, more people adding, re-writing, or giving more points of view related to this topic, and not only arguments on how the Wikipedia policies are interpreted. From my side this is it. Thank you all for your comments. Homospaciens (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2010 (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.