Deletion of Extraterrestrial skies

Comment: I don't think the article as a whole violates  - "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". The only position it could be advancing is that skies look different on other planets - and who would question that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Seems to be a http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Extraterrestrial_skies *Very Popular* (and Reader-friendly?) Wikipedia Article - ALSO - seems to satisfy  #3 => "The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals." => See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_skies#References References - in any case - Enjoy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NASTCRIT)

Comment: The nomination provides no specific details of the supposed synthesis or originality and so is just a .  The topic is notable — here's two more sources: ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yK2hFJFBgbUC Drifting on Alien Winds: Exploring the Atmospheres and Weather of Other Worlds'', ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eWeNAAAACAAJ Space Art: How to Draw and Paint Planets, Moons, and Landscapes of Alien Worlds''.  Organising and verifying the copious material is just a matter of ordinary editing per our |editing policy.  |AFD is not cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:IMPERFECT||WP:NOTCLEANUP)