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. Discussion of possible merging/redirecting can and should continue on the article talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heliosynchronous orbit[edit]

Heliosynchronous orbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

no claim of notability, no references, and anyway there's technically no such thing as a heliosynchronous rotation in this sense (as opposed to sun-synchronous orbit), since the sun isn't a solid body and different bits spin at different rates, but with no references and no notability, please !vote a DELETE Teapeat (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, please vote MERGE since examination of the history shows that the article was split out to sunsynchronous orbit, so we should maintain the history.Teapeat (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the main idea, to get rid of Heliosynchronous orbit. But would prefer a "no-content" merge to Synchronous orbit (via a Redirect), which will effectively delete the article, but will retain the comment history on the redir page. Rationale: Heliosynchronous is a meaningless term, and no sources are provided for any of the existing claims. Since all claims appear to be unsourced orginal research, I don't believe any of the content ought to be moved to Synchronous orbit.N2e (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related comment: there has been a disjointed and confusing discussion going on on the Heliosynchronous orbit Talk page since June. It started as a Prod proposal, then the Prod was withdrawn and deletion was discussed, and then someone thought a merge was better so as to retain the Talk page history. I made an attempt to cleanup and restart/centralize the merge discussion on that Talk page earlier today, right before User:Teapeat submitted the AfD. Now that the AfD is in place, I think it best to complete the discussion this page, the article's AfD page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to existing article Sun-synchronous orbit. The merge was made in 2006 [1] and should have been redirected then. Polyamorph (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Per my previous comments on the article's talk page, the term does occasionally get used. I've run across it a few times in science fiction, as well. That said, notability of this use of term is at best a grey area. While I'd offered to try to clean up the article a while back, I'm no longer in a position to do so (very busy offline). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, if some sources are forthcoming to indicate notability and actual use of the term then I would support a keep. However, most of the sources I can find regard the term "Heliosynchronous orbit" as relating to what is described in Sun-synchronous orbit article. Although I'm sure that Heliosynchronous or Heliostationary orbits, as described in the article under discussion, have been thought about and probably are described in reliable sources somewhere (actually they definitely are as CT points out on the article talk page from google scholar results), I don't think there is much more than a dictionary definition at this time? Polyamorph (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 413 sources It just needs expanding. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The google results are misleading because many of the sources refer to the case described in Sun-synchronous orbit and not the specific case described in the article under discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines — if you can find a verifiable reliable source for the actual use of heliosynchronous as it is used in that article, have at it and add a citation. As it is, not a single assertion in that short article is currently sourced. N2e (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2011 (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.