Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (2nd nomination) - Wikipedia

19 min read Original article ↗

icon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
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 Okay kids, we've had our fun. April Fools' Day is over. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a voteIf you came here because you are from Earth, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.
See my vote below for proof of hoax. John Bulten (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The last few years have seen great progress in the field of Astronomy; in particular more planets are being discovered all the time. One obvious corollary of this is that just as we have notability criteria for people, we are going to need some criteria for notable planets - they really can't all have articles. So to start the ball rolling and hopefully set a non-contentious precedent I'd like to propose the Earth for deletion for the following reasons:

  • Our principal competitor only gives it a two word microstub entry: "mostly harmless".
  • None of our major telescopes have actually reported seeing it.
If it can take pictures of the Earth, where are the pictures? There are none. Please take your OR elsewhere! Tx!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Come on, whoever heard of Earth? Totally made up and maybe even demolished to make way for a hyperspace bypass being in that end of the Sector 9 plural zone. treelo radda 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the comment below, This article will be deleted. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and there's also huge WP:COI issues as well (none of the contributors or sources come from anywhere other than Earth). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, these days they're only 8 a penny.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After early February 2009, I'd have to agree. My friend Rachel H would have to agree - it caused her to break her wrist. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Earth source for Earth
If you look closely, it says "United States" - ergo making it an Earth-based source. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I feel much better now. Mandsford (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surely there is a certain notability when one considers the number of gods that claim to have created the place? Obviously these claims are not acceptable in themselves as evidence (COI and OR), but the number is quite large. Of course, there might be sockpuppetry or deopuppetry going on, and the number of actual gods involved may be far less. Peridon (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Elephant They carry it, don't they? Peridon (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - it's turtles all the way down that supports Earth. Although I don't think anyone knows what the bottom turtle stands on. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naah - turtles don't stand on turtles, they swim... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down#In_culture Peridon (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When free oxygen first appeared on Earth, it was a destructive pollutant to much of the life. All the current inhabitants are doing is preparing the place for the next lot - whatever they will be. I would say I'd prefer not to know, but as I won't anyway, I would. Peridon (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2009 (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.