Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explorational X-ray astronomy

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 Non-admin procedural close. Article was Deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion.. Trusilver 07:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explorational X-ray astronomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish - it doesn't address the page's topic! References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this isn't an article on the subject of explorational X-ray astronomy, it's just a list of the important information about every space probe ever launched with a mission involving X-rays (some copied and pasted from other articles without attribution in violation of copyright). The topic itself may be encyclopedic, along the lines of Astronomy on Mars, but this article would need a fundamental rewrite in order to comply with WP:OR. Hut 8.5 11:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I want the six hours of my life back that I've spent checking references and cross-referencing this editor's articles. The subject of this article doesn't have anything to do with the article. This is nothing more than the author's bizarre tendency to create coatrack articles, upon which hang coatracks of more coatracks. While there is information in this article that is relevant and sourced, it is still a serious WP:SYNTH issue and all of this information is covered in other places on the project, only with the added bonus of being done coherently. Trusilver 06:47, 11 September 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.