Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andromeda-Milky Way collision

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 rewritten version. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andromeda-Milky Way collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Very NPOV, unnotable, poorly written, tone bad, unreferenced etc. Carpet 00:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It sounds more like it's philosophical than scientific, and...well, where are the references that this is an established theory? --Dennisthe2 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless Actually sourced and completely re-written. Right now it doesn't sound very encyclopedic, and it's only source doesn't work. As of now, it just can't be kept. If it's true, and was well sourced, then I'd say keep. Ganfon 00:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There appears to be a reference now... science4sail ^talkcon 00:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The New Scientist reference is enough for me. The article requires major cleanup, though.
  • Sorry, bot added signature before I could go back and fix it. Selket ^Talk 01:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup -- Yes, it's true (see [1])--stargazing will be a lot more interesting in 4 billion years. However, the article definitely needs cleanup. Even at my optimistic I doubt that I "will also be able to see part of the collision occuring" ... in 4 billion years. I think the article was a good-faith attempt to add a significant (for astronomers, at least) theory/prediction/fact (whatever it is) to Wikipedia. Cheers, Black Falcon 01:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Cleaned up, fixed references. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ganfon. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I just don't see this being expandable. It's covered by Milky_Way#Future_of_the_Milky_Way (and contradicted slightly by Andromeda_galaxy#General_information). --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, covered elsewhere, not expandable. Realkyhick 05:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Milky Way and/or Andromeda galaxy (if there's anything worth merging) and then redirect. There is plenty of high quality sources for this (predicted) event, but it's just not significant enough to have its own entry within a general encyclopedia. --Pak21 08:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. More sources are needed, but New Scientist is definitely a reputable third party source to start with. 23skidoo 14:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Milky Way#Future of the Milky Way: even with additional sources, there's really not that much to say about this topic. It doesn't merit it's own article. (Maybe in 3 billion years...:)--Aervanath 14:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I mean, my God! the Andromeda Galaxy and our Milky Way are going to collide? My question is, have you written your elected officials and asked them what they are going to do to prevent this? Their indifference is nothing short of scandalous! - Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is not a vote. Do you have anything to add to the discussion? --Pak21 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the nominator it is very badly written and the adding of a ref is good but it unfortunately does not make it excellent, the NPOV issues are pretty bad as-well. Because it's so small and contains so little information it's probably not worth the trouble.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It's written fine, and "NPOV" is what we're aiming for. If you meant POV, there is no hint of point-of-view in the current article. --Wooty Woot? contribs 18:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Aervanath. Icemuon 17:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep(and tidy) or Merge under Galaxy collision. Artw 18:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep new version. Artw 20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten at this point with new information and substantial references (NASA, Harvard, Univ. Toronto, MSNBC, Discover Mag. etc.) Kevin Murray 19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've editied to remove NPOV issues, and added more information with several more references and clarification of one exisiting reference to clarify verifiability. --Kevin Murray 19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The new version is good, with good refs, so keep. Natalie 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with the new refs establishing notability. Still needs work of course. MastCell 20:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, improve and source properly - although the New Scientist article is a good start ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Valid encyclopedic topic; could do with linking on the Andromeda Galaxy page where the subject is already mentioned. — RJH (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Milky Way is on a collision course with the andromeda galaxy and it's not notable!? Mind you I was under the impression that all the galaxies were racing away from each other at ever increasing speeds..... Jcuk 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The universe is expanding, but the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy are close neighbours of the local galactic cluster. It'd be safer to say that all the different clusters of galaxies are for the most part racing away from each other. --Charlene 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ah...thank you, that makes more sense now. Jcuk 22:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable galactic collision. --Charlene 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The scientists who are quoted clearly must have written peer-reviewed articles. This WP article will be very feeble if it can incorporate no references to peer-reviewed literature. (MSNBC.com doesn't count). Someone who looks up this issue on Wikipedia will figure that we are naive followers of everything published in the New Scientist. If appropriate references can't be supplied before the close of this AfD, I'm voting to delete. I'll watch the ensuing debate to see if anyone can remedy the situation. EdJohnston 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a non-notable subject. No serious references are given to show that this "theory" is even being considered seriously by even a minority of the scientific community. It is idle speculation that was turned into a simple gee-wiz story. According to WP policy, notability is not the same as "newsworthiness". See WP:Notability. Beyond this major policy issue, I can not see how this stub can be expanded. There is just NO information that has been published. The proponents for keeping such an article should at least give a list of at least a few peer-reviewed articles demonstrating that serious scientists have published in this ___domain. The contents of this article could easily be incorporated into another article, and there is no need to have a redirect from this page to, say, Milky way Lunokhod 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All that needs to be said about this topic has already been said in Milky Way#Future of the Milky Way 12:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable topic with reliable sources. There is time to add peer-reviewed sources later. Capitalistroadster 01:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Still proposing a merge to Milky Way#Future of the Milky Way: While I like Kevin's re-write better, it's still a stub, and I highly doubt that there will be that much more information out there on this topic, peer-reviewed or not, anytime in the near future. Barring a whole horde of new sources and information, there is no still no reason to keep it separate from the Milky Way article.--Aervanath 02:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still support Merge as per Aervanath. Icemuon 09:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The statement "In an article in the New Scientist, astronomers ... have predicted" is not referenced - the New Scientist link in Notes is to an article about NGC 520 and only mentions the collision in passing and does not name the astronomers making the prediction. Some existing links are unlrelated to article topic - "Andromeda involved in galactic collision" refers to a galaxy other than the milky way colliding with andromeda. "Busted! Astronomers Nab Culprit in Galactic Hit-and-Run" is about the galaxy M32 colliding with andromeda. Mentions milky way collision in passing, but does not reference source of prediction. Where is the original peer-review article of this theory? The topic is not notable enough for a seperate article, only deserves (brief) mention in Milky Way and/or Andromeda article.--mikeu 04:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone point me to the WP guidelines which call for peer reviewed articles? Why is mikeu not discussing the references to U of Toronto research and NASA. I put some of the critisized articles in the bibliography for additional background to demonstrate the breadth of recognition. --Kevin Murray 04:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the article needs a peer-review reference to keep. It is just that the reference links only mention the original theory in passing. I'd like to see that original publication to judge the merits of the prediction. The Toronto reference looks more more like a generic computer simulation of what might happen if the galaxies collide rather than something based on telescope observations of the galaxies aproaching each other. The opening statement of this article is likely incorrect. It does not appear that the authors of the Toronto and Harvard links were the ones proposing this theory.--mikeu 05:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the primary source for the information we have here appears to be Sky & Telescope: see the ADS record. While John Dubinski is a researcher with many peer reviewed publications, this article was published in a pop-sci magazine rather than a peer-reviewed journal, which would lead me to question whether this is "serious" research or not. Cheers --Pak21 09:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable topic. ElinorD 12:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep could be cleaned up, but still should be its own article Branson03 17:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Either keep or merge with Andromeda Galaxy#General information section. I prefer keep, or otherwise the Andromeda Galaxy article becomes a giant. Unless the information is decidedly fringe science, I don't like information to be lost. A link from Andromeda Galaxy to Andromeda-Milky Way collision and one from Interacting galaxy to Andromeda-Milky Way collision would be appropriate. Rursus declamavi; 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 07:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the links given in the article clearly indicate notability. Everyking 07:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/galaxy/2002/09/ ~ trialsanderrors 08:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the key word here is may. Icemuon 10:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point being? ~ trialsanderrors 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, forgot that the article is on a proposed theory. Still, this link doesn't convince me that the article should stay. As Dhartung mentions, this is already covered in Milky_Way#Future_of_the_Milky_Way. Icemuon 17:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a content branch for two articles. So to avoid duplication keeping it separate looks like a prudent idea. ~ trialsanderrors 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; It's already been fixed up nicely, and there's a good bit of room for expansion in going into what the implications of this are really.Arturus 18:58, 16 February 2007 (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.