Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gifford Observatory

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 of the debate was keep Dunc|☺ 19:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gifford Observatory

Just another small amateur observatory with antique equipment, contributing nothing to Professional astronomy or physics. Vote speedy delete.

• Speedy Keep. The anonymous dial-up user who's suggesting this is a troll who's been vandalising the page all day. Izogi 4 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)
• Keep. NSR 4 July 2005 10:41 (UTC)
• Keep, certainly worth an entry jamesgibbon 4 July 2005 12:01 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, as reporter is vandal. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)
• Keep, it's definitely notable Cyclone49 4 July 2005 13:11 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable observatory. This raises the question: if anonymous votes aren't counted why are anonymous nominations taken seriously.Capitalistroadster 4 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)
• Comment - that's an excellent point. Why are they??? --Mothperson 4 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)
  • Comment anonymous votes and nominations should be taken seriously and counted, unless bad faith can be proved. Proto t c 5 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)
    • Comment I realise you're also referring to the general case, and it's a fair enough comment although I'm not sure I agree with it. Out of interest given the recent edit history of this anonymous user, though, do you believe this nomination isn't in bad faith? For examples, look for similar-looking IP's in the edit history of Gifford Observatory, Carter Observatory, Benmore Peak Observatory, Stardome Observatory, and Farm cove observatory. If you look carefully at the Benmore Peak delete nomination page, you'll note that this particular user has actually voted twice to have it deleted. Izogi 5 July 2005 14:13 (UTC)
      • Comment You're a pathetic whinging git, McGavin. Just because you can't get a job as a professional astromomer you attempt to make amateurs like yourself seem useful and important instead.
• and, obviously, keep ---Mothperson 4 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)
• It's only notable attribute appears to be its age, although the article is interesting enough. The issue of contributions to Professional astronomy is irrelevant, though, as it's contributing to public education. Still the telescope is pretty puny. I'm going to pass. — RJH 4 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)
• Comment - Well in my opinion the telescope isn't anywhere near as relevant as its historical significance. The observatory is noteworthy because:
  • it was established by an astronomer who was very well-known in Wellington and New Zealand at the time,
  • it was used a lot by William Pickering (who went on to run JPL through its pioneering unmanned space missions) while growing up, and he's stated in the past that the facility really strengthened his interest in space and astronomy,
  • it's still operating and relevant in Wellington today, and there are things to write about it. Izogi 4 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
• Keep some notability. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:19 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Trolling nomination. Grutness...wha? 5 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)
• Comment - Maybe the problem is that the Astronomical observatories category is unclear about whether it's supposed to be for research observatories or not. Gifford's not worth noting for any recent serious academic contribution to astronomical research, so perhaps it shouldn't be listed there, or the category should be reorganised. It's a significant structure for a heap of other reasons, though, and deleting the page entirely is just wrong. Izogi 7 July 2005 01:19 (UTC)

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.