Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WISEPC J234841.10-102844.4: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:44, 19 March 2013

WISEPC J234841.10-102844.4

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominate a number of articles that I think fail WP:NASTRO because they "have little information beyond their physical parameters and discovery circumstances" and it is not the job of Wikipedia to duplicate a data set. These articles follow the same template, they are brown dwarfs discovered by the WISE telescope and I nominated those articles that are not on the List of nearest stars or otherwise notable. Hekerui (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as explained above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hekerui, it is misleading for you not to bring up the recent conversations at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_23#WISE_object_notability and Talk:WISEPC_J150649.97+702736.0#Notability with this nomination. -- Kheider (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad manners to accuse me of misdirection, using both fat wording and a warning label no less. Users can check those discussions, they stopped months ago and no action was taken so I showed initiative and notified the Wikiproject about it. Hekerui (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus was to create a list article, but everyone was too lazy to be bothered with sharing the workload. -- Kheider (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content should be merge with the main brown dwarf page. An individual data set is not notable on its own --DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no significance for any of them individually. Ducknish (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless "significant coverage" in multiple, non-trivial published works exists for one or more of these brown dwarfs, there is no justification for keeping these articles per WP:NASTCRIT. (Admittedly though, I only searched for sources on two of the brown dwarfs listed, so I cannot confirm the lack of sources for all.) The content is quite specific to the individual brown dwarfs, so I don't see anything sufficiently generalized that could be merged to the main brown dwarf page. There is also a List of brown dwarfs, but the items to which a list article provides links should be sufficiently notable to have their own WP articles. Otherwise such a list will devolve into a massive collection of red links that are largely non-notable. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirect to List of brown dwarfs and add an entry for each object to the tables there, as per the recommendation on WP:NASTHELP. Praemonitus (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; while redirecting may seem appealing, if we redirected these, then we would have to have entries on all similar objects, which would make the list impractically large. Thus, deletion is preferable in this case, as there is no question that these are not notable. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I expect you're correct. Praemonitus (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge required

Merge; WP:NASTRO requires merging the content. -- Kheider (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I don't see where WP:NASTRO "requires merging": "If an astronomical object does not meet the general notability guideline...then it risks being merged or redirected to an existing article, or deleted altogether." As a general rule, merging and deletion are two options. WP:NASTHELP recommends merging when "a few sentences about the object may help another article or list." In this instance the objects are non-notable and I do not see what help a few sentences about these objects could provide to another article or list for the reasons stated by StringTheory11. Moreover, WP:NASTRO states that with regards to databases of astronomical objects, "it is not the job of Wikipedia to needlessly duplicate content in these databases" (see WP:NOTDIR). --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In December 2012, the requirement for merging the content was discussed in depth at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_23#WISE_object_notability and Talk:WISEPC_J150649.97+702736.0#Notability. -- Kheider (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 *'''Delete'''; while redirecting may seem appealing, if we redirected these, then we would have to have entries on all similar objects, which would make the list impractically large. Thus, deletion is preferable in this case, as there is no question that these are not notable. [[User:StringTheory11|StringTheory11]] ([[User talk:StringTheory11|t]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/StringTheory11|c]]) 05:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 ** I expect you're correct. [[User:Praemonitus|Praemonitus]] ([[User talk:Praemonitus|talk]]) 03:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
-*'''Strongly Comment''' What if lightning Americans flew to this hallowed place and do goog the orange budge volcano bakemeat? -[[User:Lord Bromblemore|<font color="gold">'''Lord'''</font>]] [[User talk:Lord Bromblemore|<font color="brown">'''Bromblemore'''</font>]] 18:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 ==== Merge required ====
 *'''Merge'''; [[WP:NASTRO]] requires merging the content. -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 05:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)