Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of astronomy websites

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 was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

List of astronomy websites

List of astronomy websites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

This article seems to describe a fairly arbitrary collection of space/astronomy websites, with no stated inclusion or notability criteria. I can't see it being of encyclopaedic value, and Wikipedia is not a directory. W. D. Graham 14:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn for now to let the other discussion play out. --W. D. Graham 16:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not withdraw the nomination. I would like this AfD to come to a conclusion, so the closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination) will be aware of what his/her options are. Cunard (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, correction. There is an inclusion criteria, which is that they have Wikipedia articles, so it is a self-reference as well. --W. D. Graham 14:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• The lead sentence of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid states: "This guideline is about self-references and specifies which types of self-references should be avoided and which kinds are acceptable." I don't think this list is an unacceptable kind of self-reference; there is precedent for lists like this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. While Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid is inapplicable, WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE may prove fatal to this article. Cunard (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• This nomination, that paid no heed to the edit summary of the creating edit, will only serve to confuse and mess things up. This article was created as a result of discussions of alternatives to deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination), a discussion that is still active. Its fate is strongly linked to that discussion and should be decided there. Simply bring this article under the umbrella of the AFD discussion that it is already being discussed in. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's better to decide whether this list conforms to policy (or can be made to conform to policy) first before a final decision is reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• My apologies, I was not aware of the previous discussion. --W. D. Graham 16:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination), I wrote:

  I created the list by relying on Lists of websites and failed to take into consideration whether it violated WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is meant to complement Category:Astronomy websites by including both notable astronomy websites and non-notable astronomy websites that have received tangential coverage in reliable sources. I think this is a good compromise position for this AfD: It dissuades users from bombarding the article with poor sources, trivia, and fluff to create a façade of notability. Instead, at List of astronomy websites, the non-encyclopedic information can be removed in favor of retaining only a short encyclopedic summary of the website. Please do not withdraw that nomination. List articles are not my area of expertise, so perhaps an AfD can attract experienced users to refine the inclusion criteria of List of astronomy websites so that it does not violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, if, at the end of seven days, the list cannot be improved to satisfy the WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE policies, then it can be deleted and the discussion at this AfD can focus solely on whether Universe Today can be kept or deleted.

  I request that this AfD be relisted by the reviewing administrator after seven days have elapsed, so that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of astronomy websites can come to a conclusion before a decision is made here.

  I would like this article to be kept so the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline-failing Universe Today can be merged into it. However, AfD positions should be motivated not by personal opinion but by policy-based arguments. Because I have little experience with regard to list articles, I will abstain from formally supporting retention but hope that more experienced editors can revise this article so it does not violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Cunard (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm involved in policing List of open source Android applications which says "This is an incomplete list of notable applications (apps) that run on ..." Phrasing it in terms of notability rather than things which have wikipedia pages seems better to me. A number of the apps on List of open source Android applications have had articles created apparently just to get on the list. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• The problem with confining the list to notable websites is that Universe Today would be excluded from the list. The guideline at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of companies and organizations states:

  A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group.

  Is it possible to refine the list's criteria to permit non-notable websites but not violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Cunard (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is with no notability threshold, the list could and indeed should include literally every website about astronomy. A quick Google search returns about 34 million results... If this list is kept, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. --W. D. Graham 00:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The list could include only astronomy websites that have received coverage in reliable sources (though not necessarily nontrivial coverage that establishes notability). Cunard (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, and then conform to WP:LIST. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment – A potentially huge, huge list. It could be restricted a bit by limiting the content to professional organizations and astronomy association sites. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Would this criteria include Universe Today? How would such a restructuring be accomplished? (Would a rename be necessary?) Cunard (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That's probably a discussion for the article talk page. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy close - This list was created as a result of discussion at the Universe today AfD linked above, but it is not unreasonable to keep this list regardless of the outcome at that AfD. Common sense suggests that a list should only be deleted if the unlimited scope problem is unfixable, which is not the case here. All that is needed is a consensus on the article talk page about what the inclusion criteria should be, perhaps an Alexa ranking since it is a list of web sites. VQuakr (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - but provide clear criteria which allow a page to be entered on here, and make it look more like a list. Do not write extremely long sections on each website listed; those belong in dedicated articles, not a list amalgamating all of them. The most that should be there are brief, verifiable comments. This is not Extremely detailed characterizations of astronomy websites containing information which makes it seem like ten articles combined into one.Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 02:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment why is The Planetary Society listed in the list article? It's not a website, it's an NGO, hell it has its own interplanetary probes. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the correction. I've removed The Planetary Society from the list. Cunard (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Why is AuroraMAX listed? It's not a Wikipedia article about a website. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2012 (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.