Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colossus Telescope


 * 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 redirect to Extremely large telescope. Consensus not to have an article; the "keep" opinions are poor ("many hits in google"). But no consensus to delete or merge; hence redirect, so editors can add this project to the list.  Sandstein  13:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Colossus Telescope

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTE. Primary source only. No evidence of notability/that it is anything more than a PowerPoint project at present. Most of the article is generic to Extremely large telescopes. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Is fully noteworthy and absolutely not just a PowerPoint project perhaps you didn't read the whole article, the precursor telescope (PLANETS telescope) have 2.6m USD invested already (50% of the investment, currently been built,expected January 2018) and there are several peer review papers like the cited: "Remote Sensing of Life: Polarimetric Signatures of Photosynthetic Pigments as New Biomarkers, Berdyugina, S.V., Kuhn, J.R., Harrington, D.M., Santl-Temkiv, T., Messersmith, E.J., International Journal of Astrobiology, 15, 45-56 (2016)" Not just a primary source.


 * And have you check the science team and the organizations backing the project? see: about-us or have you check the tecnology development? see: our-technology Also the technology is totally different then the currently been employed on the Extremely large telescopes, off-axis, low weight mirrors, 3d printed actuators, low scattered light, big savings in cost.Quantanew (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Large telescopes, such as the 75 m Colossus telescope are needed to investigate hundreds of Earth-like planets in stellar habitable zones.
 * Comment: By definition any precursor telescope is not this telescope, so i'm not sure how that is relevant. The paper you cite again is not directly relevant to this telescope concept; it is only tangentially related to ELTs in general.  In fact it only references the concept once, and even then in a rather non-committal way;
 * More importantly it is written by people involved in the concept, thus it is still a primary source. As for other organisations, the website states;

Organizations that have supported the PLANETS telescope.
 * Firstly supported can mean a lot of things, and universities are involved in many collaborations that aren't of note to include in an encyclopedia. Secondly this is specifically in relation to the proposed precursor, NOT the concept that is the subject of this article. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: It fails your lack notability argument, it passes the notability clearly, with a 2.6m dollar investment on the precursor and 2018 delivery, new technology, peer reviewed work, and PLANETS is a telescope and a foundation. You're picking and choosing what is the value of a scientific contribution and how that entails for the whole project, and discounting the science team behind the effort. Quantanew (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Adding more notability videos (not all of them): breakthrough-starshot-updates-with-pete-worden, The PLANETS Foundation: Looking for Life in the Universe, existential-education-the-colossus-project exo-planet-detection-program-for-alpha-centauri Finding ET with the Colossus Telescope - Jeff KuhnQuantanew (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also the primary sources are from conferences with solid science behind them, is not something controversial to discard so easily, like the way you're trying to do and in any case increases the notability of the project eg. New strategies for an extremely large telescope dedicated to extremely high contrast: the Colossus project Looking beyond 30m-class telescopes: the Colossus project Partially filled aperture interferometric telescopes: achieving large aperture and coronagraphic performance.Quantanew (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Another peer review paper on the International Journal of Astrobiology specifically for the Colossus telescope: Global Warming as a Detectable Thermodynamic Marker of Earth-like Extrasolar Civilizations: The case for a Telescope like Colossus, Kuhn, J.R., Berdyugina, S.V., International Journal of Astrobiology, 14, 401-410Quantanew (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

More notability Astronomy magazine How to find ET with infrared light, Kuhn, J.R., Berdyugina, S.V., Halliday, D., Harlingten, C., Astronomy, June issue, pp. 30-35 (2013)Quantanew (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Peer review paperGlobal Warming as a Detectable Thermodynamic Marker of Earth-like Extrasolar Civilizations: The case for a Telescope like Colossus, Kuhn, J.R., Berdyugina, S.V., International Journal of Astrobiology, 14, 401-410 Quantanew (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: for all the reasons above Quantanew (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:TOOSOON and of course a lack of non-primary sources to indicate notability. Lithopsian (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Google Scholar drags up a bunch of papers by a Mr. Kuhn, who I presume is intimately related to the project. It gets a paragraph in this conference proceeding, which might be reliable, but certainly isn't significant coverage. I also saw some news churnalism here and there. This is, at-best, a merge to extremely large telescope and at-worst, a delete. The admin closing this can decide how this !vote falls. --Izno (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is almost no content about the proposed telescope itself (the article subject). What little there is probably should be a footnote in another article. If and when coverage gets beyond primary sources, we should create the article with the information available at the time. No point in creating an article before such content exists. I particularly lean against keeping the article because it looks like an attempt to leverage Wikipedia as a publicity engine rather than to document something notable. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 22:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I note that the Spanish version of the article has more information about the telescope proposal itself (for example, that it's 60 separate 8 meter telescopes). If this article does survive, sections 4 & 5 should be deleted outright (they aren't about the proposal), and the lede and section 3 need to be rewritten using English grammar. Section 2 (aside from the spelling error), needs to be more specific "hybrid technology" is not meaningful without specifying what is being talked about. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 22:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I feel this is been very unfairly reviewed, disregarding peer reviewed sources (see:International Journal of Astrobiology, 14, 401-410, notability sources and sustantial financial and scientific investment already committed on precursor technologies, I could expand more about issues regarding content and grammar but this review has a chilling effect on improving something tha could be deleted. Sections 4 and 5 are precursor efforts. Also the hybrid technology has more details that I could add but after the review. Quantanew (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Extremely large telescope. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We require that topics be already well known (notable in the Wikipedia sense) as shown by reliable pubished sources covering the topic in depth. These need to be secondary sources, not the primary sources written by people associated with the Colossus project. The fact that the primary sources are peer reviewed doesn't matter., this does not mean that the project is not worthy of note. It just hasn't been published about yet by people independent of the project. We have the same problem with many technical topics that come out of industry rather than academia, where all discussion of development was internal. It can be very frustrating, but if there isn't published independent material there can't be a Wikipedia article. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I could agree with a merge instead of deleting the article Quantanew (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Extremely large telescope. StarryGrandma's explanation is spot-on. The article needs reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the Colossus project, but at this point in time, those sources do not appear to exist. Astro4686 (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep this is clearly a notable telescope project with many hits in google. Fotaun (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2017 (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.