Deletion of Modern Mars habitability

Comment: Robert writes "This article was here for well over a year and nobody found any issues with it." Not a legitimate argument against deletion. See . Why DID it go so long before AfD nom? From my own experience, here's what I'd guess: It could just be that most editors who noticed the new article and who might have addressed the issues with it were already too exhausted from previous  tangles with Robert
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LONGTIME||WP:CHEESE)

Comment: per  and . Agree as Cullen puts it. '' massively bloated personal essay based on primary sources, synthesis and original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:TNT)

Comment: it is a notable topic with many papers published on it every year, as well two conferences or conference sessions: UCLA in 2013 and NASA / LPL in 2018. The citations used are similar to those used in other Wikipedia articles in the topic area - NASA online astrobiology magazine, mainstream astrobiology journals, with preference for review papers where available, NASA press releases and so on. Much of the material  in the first half is based on Nilton Renno's review paper in Space Science Reviews https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11214-012-9956-3/fulltext.html "Water and Brines on Mars: Current Evidence and Implications for MSL" and on the sources cited by him. The POV's are as expressed in the sources. There's also a section Modern Mars habitability#Views on the possibility of present day life on or near the surface which gives an idea of the range of views on this matter as in the sources given. If any particular sources are questionable or any POV's inaccurately summarized please elaborate on the talk page of the article. On the length then it's not a problem for those not interested in the topic or who find the section in Life on Mars#Habitability sufficent for them, by . And for those that need to find out more, the thoroughness of it is valuable - I have covered all the most significant findings of the last decade in this topic area succintly. On tone, then that is easily fixed by wikignoming / copy editing if you see issues of that sort. It has been in Wikipedia now since March 2017. I am baffled that it suddenly has an AfD without prior talk page discussion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: as a heap of /
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Seems almost redundant to add this now, but, while I'd normally recommend at least trying to clean this up, there's just so much of it, and such a high proportion of it is problematic that |TNT is really the only option we are left with. Valid enough topic, of course, but it's covered elsewhere on WP, and covered better. (Arriving in discussion from Talk:Biology
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: In addition to |too much speculation, the article is framed so that |it cannot endure. This is an essay that has potential meaning only in the present and will become out of date; it does not belong in an encyclopedia. (Arriving in discussion from Talk:Biology
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: This article unfortunately points up the creator's massive loquaciousness (the lede alone is currently 14 paragraphs) and lack of understanding of how the Wikipedia encyclopedia should be written and sourced. I suggest that if the article creator wants to keep it that he turn it into some kind of eBook, Kindle book, or website, for those interested in this kind of relatively speculative (and /) sort of material, and massive disruptive images. As Elmidae states above, this article cannot be salvaged for Wikipedia purposes at this point, so a  is in order if at all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:TNT)

Comment: Robert is not a biologist either, so his attack strategy to dismiss other people's feedback is null.  I am a biologist and I did work in astrobiology and I can say that Robert has been the biggest liability to Wikipedia in this subject for many years. And no, the problem is not limited the title, or a misunderstanding, or the length of the introduction, or the absolute lack of encyclopedic tone, but his pervasive POV and synthesis of biased BS, and his using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote his blog and beliefs. Reality check: the surface is deemed sterile, known ''in situ'' to be bathed in radiation and known ''in situ'' to be toxic (10x more lethal than thought 2 years ago! See: {{cite journal| pmc=5500590 | pmid=28684729 | doi=10.1038/s41598-017-04910-3 | volume=7 | issue=1 | title=Perchlorates on Mars enhance the bacteriocidal effects of UV light | year=2017 | journal=Sci Rep | page=4662 | last1 = Wadsworth | first1 = J | last2 = Cockell | first2 = CS| bibcode=2017NatSR...7.4662W }}) yet, he even moved up to the introduction: ''"The environment on Mars potentially is basically one giant dinner plate for Earth organisms".'' Robert's shameful assay runs amok with things like these in defiance of actual scientific knowledge and consensus. His Martian hysteria has persisted for too many years in several Wikipedia articles, and I had to cleanup every time, and weather the unavoidable dramas and walls-of-text. He is not here to build an encyclopedia, and I strongly suspect Robert's only interest in this subject is to mimic his blog content in Wikipedia to give himself some credibility. Robert is unable to understand that this is not his blog, and that we are not just fans talking about his "publications", despite the self-reminder he added at his user page, which brings the need to remark that ompetence is required. I must admit that I felt somewhat relieved when he gathered all his assays on Mars and dumped them here, in a single article, because I thought his chronic damage to Wikipedia would be contained in a single page. I just have no more energy left for him and undergo the process of a Mars topic ban, but I am willing to support it and find relevant diffs if the community takes it that way
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)