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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterrestrial skies[edit]

Extraterrestrial skies (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)

Although it breaks my heart to do so because WP:ILIKEIT, I believe that this is an example of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I can't really find any sources to verify many of the claims. Roodog2k (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I see 16 references. Just because it needs better referencing is not a reason to delete it. -- Kheider (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - My concerns are not so much about the existing references, but whether these references are used as WP:SYNTH. Further, some of the statements seem to be WP:OR... such as "From Phobos, Mars appears 6,400 times larger and 2,500 times brighter than the full Moon as seen from Earth, taking up a quarter of the width of a celestial hemisphere" and the whole section on Alpha Centauri Bb would be two examples. Roodog2k (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Perhaps your concerns can be easily adjusted/updated - without compromising and/or deleting an otherwise worthy (imo) and notable (per refs) article? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the topic is notable. But there are issues with the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. At times, it even reads like an essay. Many claims are unsourced, such as the examples listed above.Roodog2k (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems to be a *Very Popular* (and Reader-friendly?) Wikipedia Article - ALSO - seems to satisfy WP:NASTCRIT #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 References - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If we can have articles of a biographical nature about fictional characters, then this article about the real world is appropriate. Also, it isn't a slapdash short article, but an extensive write up covering sights that astronauts might one day see much of. Gcapp1959 (don't have the tilde on my iPad)
• Delete - Very sad to say (because it is such a great article), but if we are going by WP policy this is OR and SYNTH. It is much the same as an article on "Inspirational sports people" for example. Each section could be merged with the article on the planet, moon, etc. in question. Borock (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it like an article on "Inspirational sports people"? That would be necessarily subjective and open to endless debate, while this article is based on scientific fact. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the point of comparison I was thinking of. You could find secondary sources that say a sports figure was inspirational to some people. I actually think it would be a very interesting article, as this one is. Borock (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't see WP:OR among the reasons for deletion. It may contain some WP:OR, but not exclusively; and it easily meets the general notability criteria. There are plenty of facts that either have citations or for which they could be found - after all, we have sent satellites to most of these bodies, and even taken pictures from the surfaces of some. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If it was a good enough subject for Life Magazine in 1954, an astronomical Atlas from 1980, a chapter in a popular science book from 2000, etc., then it's good enough for us (that is, I believe that the subject matter of the article is notable as a whole, and not just a synthesis of individually-notable pieces). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks David E. However those sources seem to be examples of paintings of extraterrestrial skies, not discussions of the topic itself. Also I, at least, am not advocating the removal of any of the fine scientific material in this article; just spreading it around to the different articles on the planets themselves. Borock (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have read articles on the topic in science-oriented magazines, so I believe it's a notable topic according to Wikipedia standards. Praemonitus (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - looks fine to me. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Since when are "I've read articles on the subject" and "Seems okay to me" valid keep criteria? And what's with all of the above upper case Keep !votes? Is this some sort of meatpuppetry? RNealK (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles I've read indicate that this topic satisfies WP:GNG. If I'm a meatpuppet then might I suggest you're trolling? Read WP:Civility and be more respectful. Praemonitus (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - but needs more sourcing. This AfD is mentioned on Jimbo's talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't think the article as a whole violates WP:SYNTH - "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? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The way I see it, when dealing with objective facts, rather than subjective facts, there is a fine line between OR and SYNTH. So, claiming that a certain star is a certain planets pole star is SYNTH. Planet A has X axial tilt. Star B is located at Y. Therefore, Planet A's pole star is Y... unless there is a secondary source that says this. OR is the whole section on Alpha Centauri Bb, or how large Mars appears from its moons. The article is full of this. Not much, if anything, is left otherwise. Roodog2k (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination provides no specific details of the supposed synthesis or originality and so is just a WP:VAGUEWAVE. The topic is notable — here's two more sources: Drifting on Alien Winds: Exploring the Atmospheres and Weather of Other Worlds, 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. Warden (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sorry for not explaining better. While each subtopic regarding the skies of other planetary objects in the solar system and exoplanets elsewhere is notable and verifable, combining these together under one article can be considered synthesis and OR, and maybe even an essay. Roodog2k (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• An essay is "A composition of moderate length on any particular subject, or branch of a subject; originally implying want of finish". This well describes most of our articles and is no reason to delete. Placing related topics together under a common heading is not synthesis; it is just sensible organisation. To be anything like a reason to delete, you must demonstrate that there is a particular proposition which has been invented in a novel way and that this cannot be better dealt with by ordinary editing per WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sixteen sources says it all. yeah, Muskie72 (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.