Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humanity Manifest Destiny

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. MBisanz ^talk 10:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humanity Manifest Destiny[edit]

Fails WP:OR and WP:V, among others. PROD removed (quite properly) by author, saying "Using my rights as Author I remove the PROD because this is a genuine proposal to make part of universal knowledge, I invite the comunity to keep developing this topic". Sorry, but developing original ideas is not what Wikipedia is for. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I may regret it, the topic itself is actually notable. The idea that we can make treaties about how to colonize Mars (like we freaking "own" outerspace) is worthy of an article. The existing stub isn't it, and I am not sure if the title is the exact title it should have, but as it is, as a stub, the topic and current content is ok, just not sourced yet. I am hoping it doesn't turn into a big original research project, like some other articles (cough cough) but as it is today, I can't see why to delete. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- Please note: the talk page for the article shows the desire for a different direction. At this time, the article doesn't have that direction, hense why I have to keep. If this changes, then my !vote would. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before nominating, I did have a look for possible sources, but I could only find a few blogs in which the idea of Manifest Destiny was taken beyond the purely terrestrial. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The concept of space colonization, along with the pros and cons of it, is treated in (mirabile dictu) Space colonization. Any non-POV-pushing material that might be used to develop this article could be used just as readily to develop that one, and we'd be rid of a title that is grammatically dubious and arguably POV-pushing itself. Deor (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially a dictionary entry for a neologism. —SlamDiego_←T 20:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NEO and WP:FRINGE. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In any case it's only a single sentence with no clear context and no references and it's verging on nonsensical. It could easily have been speedied. andy (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a great idea; finally someone that mentions the reality of our destiny. Keep & Wiki Project--Tonymynd (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tonymynd is the creator of the article under discussion; he appears to be praising himself here. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I caught that earlier. I think he may be misunderestimating Wikipedians. Almost funny in a pitiful way. Or slightly insulting. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 15:53, 6 November 2008 (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.