Deletion of Earth (2nd nomination)

Comment: per Tavix. Can't we find a ''single'' independent source? This whole article reeks of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: It's my |home, it's |very pretty at the right time of day on the surface, and it's where I keep all of my stuff.  Why would you want to blow this place up
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:INTERESTING)

Comment: with 300 (film).  This topic was mentioned in the movie and by  we should save this information. The film's article would be at a loss without this valuable background material
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: While the nominator states that 'our principal competitor only gives it a two word microstub entry: "mostly harmless"', he has clearly failed in the requirements of  in only examining the older edition of the Guide; the http://cantbeatfun.com/Mars/hgttg2.htm new revised edition is much expanded, including a section of tips for travelers (get a job as a New York taxi driver; it doesn't matter if you don't look human
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: This article is clearly biased towards Earthlings; we must maintain |NPOV when it comes to other life forms in the universe, like Kathy Lee Gifford, Star Jones, David Haselhoff, and that race of mucus people in the Mucinex commercial. Besides, Melmac and Ork are better planets anyways, so there :-P
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: per  (no way this will be deleted and even if it is a joke, it will be restored promptly).  Anyway, passes  and  among pretty much everything.  Sincerely
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: I don't mean to go , but we just AfD Pluto a while back... if it doesn't meet inclusion as a planet, I don't know how we could keep this one as well
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: written by its own inhabitants, reeks of |conflict of interest if you ask me. Get rid of it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: If you look up the so-called "independent |reliable sources" adduced by the inclusionistas, such as Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Vulcans, Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius, Arda, Ork, Melmac, etc., you will find they have each been ''perpetrated by earthlings'' as attempts to create apparent "independent" sources. Widespread as the hoax may be, WP is above it all when it comes to this kind of chest-pounding attempts at conferring notability.  already so we can get on with 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:SNOW||WP:DRV)

Comment: Wikipidea has clear guide lines about mostly harmless things: |WP:MOSTLYHARMLESS: ''Just because having an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should be kept'' and goes on to say: ''"it does not do any harm" claim, and its rebuttal, is at the center of the philosophical editing debate of inclusionism versus deletionism. For more information and arguments, see the Meta articles m:Inclusionism|Inclusionism and m:Deletionism|Deletionism.''. Deep thoughts. Yours ever
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:HARMLESS)