Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of astronomical topics

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 No consensus. Essjay (Talk) 09:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of astronomical topics

List of astronomical topics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete - This is simply an unwieldly, long list of any topic that may be remotely related to astronomy, including articles on general subject information, articles on specific objects, and articles on people. Remarkably, the list is simultaneously overly broad, overly long, and woefully incomplete. It conveys no useful information, and it is so long and so broadly inclusive that it is not useful for navigation. The article is not salvagable; deletion is the only option. Dr. Submillimeter 09:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - useless, arbitary, incomplete and indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 09:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The talk page claims that its primary purpose is for tracking edits using the "Related changes" feature. Perhaps this should be moved out of the article namespace into an appropriate project? BCoates 10:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I will mention this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects, the best WikiProject to handle this page. However, I have the sense that this page would not be needed in that WikiProject; the Wikiproject already has a few unmaintained work lists. Dr. Submillimeter 11:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I thought about using the list for tracking changes to astronomy-related articles and realized that the list is so woefully incomplete that it would not be useful for such an activity. For example, compare the list of NGC objects in list of astronomical topics to the list in Category:NGC objects. Given the incompleteness of the article (and the overwhelmingly impractical issue of adding all astronomy-related topics to the list), I would say that this page can no longer be used effectively to track changes to astronomy-related articles in Wikipedia through the "related changes" feature. This is an additional reason why the page should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 12:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Contrary to the nomination, this page is part of a navigation scheme. If one is navigating from Wikipedia:Contents — which is the "contents" link right at the start of the Main Page — and follows the link thereon to the lists of topics, this list is the next step downward in navigation towards astronomical topics. Uncle G 10:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I did not claim that this was not part of a navigation scheme. Instead, I am claiming that it is not useful for navigation. Dr. Submillimeter 11:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep At least in my view this list is much to cumbersome. Nevertheless, it's part of the navigation and I believe that it should be revised (by adding subcats, etc) rather than deleted. TSO1D 15:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• And one more comment Do we have a precedent on this? There are tons and toms of those lists: List of science topics ~ trialsanderrors 22:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see why a gigantic list is needed when there's already a category. —ShadowHalo 22:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Should be a category if anything. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless maintained by a bot (and the incompleteness argues that this one isn't) I don't see the point in this sort of listcruft when the category system handles the same needs much better. —David Eppstein 22:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep this really should be reorganized into sublists if its part of a navigational scheme. 132.205.93.89 19:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — At one time this page was probably more useful than it is now. But I'd at least like to see the various red links moved to the Requested Articles page. Otherwise I think this page is now better presented through the Astronomy category tree. — RJH (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:LIST - maybe (definitely) it could be better written, but so what? WilyD 22:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep It is no worse than the other cumbersome navigation articles in WP. It's not as if we actually had something better and consistently implemented. DrS, what do the other astronomty editors think? DGG 08:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - RJHall and I are the only regular members of WikiProject Astronomy or WikiProject Astronomical objects that have posted here despite an announcement at WikiProject Astronomical objects. I voted to delete; RJHall seems to have made a neutral comment. An anonymous user has commented at WikiProject Astronomical objects that the list should be kept. Dr. Submillimeter 10:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete - This list can never be complete, and if it is will be completely unweildy. It lacks a simple, coherent focus, and was long ago superseeded by Category:Astronomy. --EMS | Talk 21:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Come now - at the very least, lists are superseeded by categories is long known to be false. "Incompleteness" is also a lousy criterion for deletion (For instance, it could be used to delete several featured lists), unwieldy is subjective and pointless (There's no "more wieldy" alternative) - and claiming it lacks a simple, coherent focus is absurd. This list fell out of the simple, coherent focus tree and hit every branch on the way down. It's a model of simple, coherent focii. WilyD 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment at the very least, rather than deleting this list (which we all know would be supremely retarded) "For the sake of navigation" it might be sensible to trim it down to just the more specific lists and "foundational" articles, so that people would stop complaining about it's "usefullness" WilyD 15:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete this is not an encyclopedia but meta content that should either be in project space or superceded by categories. Eluchil404 07:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Topic seems worthy of inclusion. If there are problems with the article, they can be addressed elsewhere. delldot | talk 20:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Eluchil404 above Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:46, 23 December 2006 (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.