Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydrocarbons on other planets

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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 23:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrocarbons on other planets

The article is extremely short, and is merely speculation about a possible far future technology. It was marked 10 months ago for improvement, with no substantive change made.

.Delete. Dalbury 22:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

*delete. There may be Dairy Queen's on other planets as well, but its not getting mentioned in this encyclopedia.—Gaff ^ταλκ 01:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Crufty one-sentence article that should be in a general article on exogeology. - Sensor 02:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DV8 2XL 02:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Aquillion 06:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Merge with the respective planetary articles, then delete. It has good information now, but without the speculation it doesn't really provide a reason why this information should be gathered into one article (where it's unlikely to be seen) rather than placed in the articles on the respective planets. --Aquillion 19:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, speculation, not a useful article title. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It's not a stunning FA article yet, but at least it's no longer speculation. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I have completely rewritten this article to reflect current knowledge. Denni☯ 03:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• I like that it has been rewritten and is now an informative article. I still wonder if the title is useful as it seems rather too specific. It seems a topic of importance, don't get me wrong. But I wonder if it would not have a more useful place either as a section under the respective planets that you cover, or in the article on hydrocarbons, or as somebody above suggested exogeology. Thanks for filling WP with information, btw.—Gaff ^ταλκ 03:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• oh yeah...keep.—Gaff ^ταλκ 05:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Good rewrite. Doesn't look anymore like it was cut & pasted from a 7th-grade book report. Good job, Denni. Change my delete vote to keep. - Sensor 03:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. You're a good (wo)man, Denni. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 03:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, now that it's been tidied up a little. Saberwyn 07:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Denni has done good. Keep. -- Captain Disdain 09:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I nominated the article for deletion, and Denni's edit has removed the reasons for the nomination. Now, where does the article fit in Wiki? I'm still uncomfortable with the title, and am not sure if it should be merged, and where. - Dalbury 11:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep good job --Rogerd 00:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• I just wanted to make sure the info didn't get lost. I also think the best option is to merge the information here with Jupiter, Saturn, and Titan (moon), secondarily to move it to a new title, say, Hydrocarbons in gas giant atmospheres. Denni☯ 00:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless you want to just go ahead and do it yourself, I suggest further discussion of how to handle this article go to its Talk page. - Dalbury 01:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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.