Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quipu (cosmic structure)

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 draftify‎. Owen× ☎ 13:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quipu (cosmic structure)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Standard example of WP:TOOSOON. Proposed cosmology structure based upon a single article which was accepted for publication in January 2025 (a week or two ago), plus a writeup in a popular science magazine (Smithsonian Magazine) a few days ago. No secondary sources, work is far too new to have been analyzed by the wider community. Article was draftified, pointing out that Wikipedia is not for recent proposals or neologisms, only for established science with secondary sources etc. Editor ignored draftification and moved back to main without any attempt to explain or generate a consensus. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator. Pages such as this belong on Facebook or similar until there is a body of secondary sources, not Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Yep, that's prime WP:TOOSOON territory. Wait for some secondary literature to pick up the term, then try to write an article about it. Sheesh, the sole source hasn't even been formally published yet. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. An alternative would be a redirect to List of largest cosmic structures, where it is linked. Praemonitus (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please note that the original editor reverted a Draftification, so I am not sure if that will be useful. A redirect looks like a good alternative. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD frequently functions as the "draftification enforcement board" - if that is the consensus and it is not heeded, then there is the base for an admin to act accordingly. - Redirect would be okay IMO. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are already a host of secondary sources and news outlets about this structure, and there has been some media mentions that qualifies criteria 3 of WP:NASTCRIT. Keep in mind that WP:TOOSOON is a personal essay, not a general guideline like WP:NASTCRIT, so I am not sure it can be solely used to justify deletion. The article should be expanded and have a cleanup instead to comply with the quality standards. SkyFlubbler (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article should remain and it will be expanded as and when more information becomes available 115.113.220.51 (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Galaxy filament where this article is not linked.--Oneiros (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify because there simply aren't viable sources. The original publication is obviously primary, and pop-science news is, well, pop-science news: prone to hype, exaggeration, overselling both certainty and novelty... Merging text that is not based on reliable and independent sources would be preserving unsuitable text. We shouldn't do that. XOR'easter (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I guess we will see if there is any more info. I agree that there aren't enough sources for now. Procyon117 (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - it's too soon, but not sure if we should merge or userfy. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2025 (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.