Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IRrelevant 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IRrelevant Astronomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable podcast. Doesn't even appear to be linked from any NASA locations. Only 98 Ghits, and none of them is reliable. My speedy tag was removed. Corvus cornixtalk 23:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Might merit an external link at Spitzer Space Telescope, but no more is possible without non-trivial independent coverage. As a side note, what kind of public outreach team calls astronomy irrelevant? Did basic science suddenly get too much funding and public interest? Were they trying for IRreverant? - Eldereft (cont.) 16:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "IR" probably refers to infrared. Corvus cornixtalk 22:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I expect that it does, but I think that that particular IR word was a poor choice for the pun. Not that that influenced my !vote, of course. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "IR" probably refers to infrared. Corvus cornixtalk 22:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Spitzer Space Telescope, it's a plausible search term if people are looking for that and a sentence or two mentioning it would seem to be appropriate in the telescope's article. That said, the lack of sources mean a stand-alone article certainly fails WP:WEB. ~ mazca t | c 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep major NASA project. This is not the typical podcast. Multiple reviews on google. The standard RS guideline is intended to be adapted to the subject. DGG (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, although you and I are usually diametrically opposed on AfDs, I respect your work, but I couldn't find any reliable sources. You say there are multiple reviews, but none of them is from a reliable site, that I could find, they were all in blogs and forums. Can you provide links to reliable sites, please? Corvus cornixtalk 20:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- for topics of this sort, dealing with scientific communication, the blogs and forums are the main information venues. We appply our requirements according to what is relevant to the subject. They are sufficiently reliable to write a descriptive article. (incidentally, we're not diametrically opposed of most AfDs. I don';t find it necessary to comment on all, especially when I agree with you. DGG (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. We66er (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with User:DGG, it is not the typical podcast and a major NASA project. AdjustShift (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2008 (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.