Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comet appearances in china


 * 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 speedy keep. I was holding off withdrawing the nomination because of the relatively large number of delete !votes, but almost half of them have changed their opinions (as have I). The article has been significantly improved and I have no further objections. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Comet appearances in china

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This seems like a rather arbitrary cross-categorization, which falls under WP:NOT (in addition to having no references). Comets are not "fast" events, so I see no reason why we need to specifically narrow the country of viewing (e.g. everyone in the world saw Halley's Comet in 1986). Primefac (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete unless references can be presented showing it is a notable topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per StarryGrandma. Convincing arguments and refs have made me reconsider my vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete . Comets do not respect national borders, so this is not a sensible way to classify them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and Move to Historic comet observations in China. The historic observations seem to be the actual topic of the article. While comets appeared everywhere, for much of history only the Chinese astronomers were recording them systematically. The article gives no references and needs text in addition to lists, but there are books and papers on the subject. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems to make sense, so I've stricken by "delete" above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note I have moved the table about Halley's Comet to that article, as) it should be there, and b) a vast majority of the information wasn't specifically from China. This leaves the page with a generic repetition of "a comet appeared". Primefac (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And I have restored it. Deleting it has the effect of removing all mention of Halley from the article.  Chinese observations of Halley were important to modern astronomers.  Your deletion also had the effect of making the first entry in the AD era whereas there are sources citing Chinese observation of comets as far back as 1059 BC. SpinningSpark 21:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , fair point, but I have taken the liberty of removing all non-Chinese sightings. Also, as a point of note, the Halley's table starts at 240BC, so I'm not sure how I "removed" 1059BC. Primefac (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you did remove 1059BC. I said there were sources citing it.  A very large number of sources in fact. SpinningSpark 23:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep or rename: China is rather unusual in this respect given their lengthy history of naked eye astronomical observations. It's not just a random cross-categorization. Cometary appearances can be useful for determining the chronology of other events. Praemonitus (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Old comet appearances are already listed in List of hyperbolic comets, with these new ones added- the source is from a 1960's book on ancient chinese comets, if I can recall correctly. Either way, the article is redundant and serves no useful purpose. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That list does not even include Halley's comet, one of the most important items being discussed here, and correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it could not be put on that list because it is not hyperbolic. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 23:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as an irrelevant method of classification - we don't split up any other astronomical object by the nationality of the person who observed it. The correct place to highlight the long history of comet observations in China would be observational history of comets. This contextless list doesn't add anything useful, and almost all the entries have no information beyond the year. Any data on this page that isn't already in the various lists of comets can be merged into the relevant already-existing list(s). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT and indiscriminate collection of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep China has an ancient tradition of comet observations, independently of Europe. Historically, their observations have been of the greatest importance in confirming and adding to European/Near East observation, and crosschecking dates. The Needham references is a famous encyclopedic work by the great scholar of Chinese science--any thing to which he devotes a section of his magnum opus is notable. What the aarticle needs is additional material.  DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete in the current form. What I take away from the above is that an encyclopedia article that covers the history of comet observations in China would be greatly appreciated, as per DGG's argument, but that a contextless bare list of observations is indiscriminate information and of very little value to readers.  Sandstein   17:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as LISTCRUFT -- HighKing ++ 18:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I understand that China has a singularly important history with regards to the observation of comets, but this article is not the one to highlight it. It is a barebones list that does nothing to link these observations with any sort of historical significance. Joyous! | Talk 18:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, interesting list but did not receive significant coverage from independent sources. Maybe interesting to add some content about comet watching in China instead. Icebob99 (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per argument. My delete vote was based on the fact that it seemed to be more of a logbook than an article, but if there are those sources as he lists, then it swings my vote. Icebob99 (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete There's really nothing to the article. If it could be properly referenced, the entire list could be summarized as a paragraph (perhaps in "Chinese astronomers noted comet appearances in the years 13, 57, 60, etc." and achieve the same effect. Observational history of comets seems the best place. Matt Deres (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep per DGG. Many of the delete !votes are based on the state of the article as it is now, not what it could be.  That's not how AfD should work; if a topic is notable, it remains notable however badly it is written, and I hope the closer will discount such !votes.  And it undoubtedly is notable; Chinese observations are not only some of the earliest, but they are used by, and are important to modern astronomers.  There are numerous sources verifying this importance.  I am busy with something else right now, but I will highlight some of them below shortly. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 21:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Information. Besides the two excellent sources added to the article by StarryGrandma, there is also
 * "Oriental tales of Halley's Comet", New Scientist, 1984, a four page article including this "More than 1000 years ago, Earth's gravitational pull disturbed the orbit of Halley's Comet. Now astronomers cannot calculate it's original path; they have to rely on ancient Chinese observations"
 * East-Asian Archaeoastronomy has a whole chapter on Chinese observations of Halley's comet and the chapter includes a 3-page section discussing Chinese observations of comets generally.
 * John Williams, Observations of Comets from B. C. 611 to A. D. 1640: Extracted from the Chinese Annals, 1871 a widely cited English translation.
 * Science and Civilisation in China devotes a chapter to Chinese comet observations and says "While there exists a few Babylonian cuneiform records of comets as far back as −1140, and observations of them were quite frequent in ancient and medieval Europe, the Chinese records are by far the most complete"
 * The Shorter Science and Civilisation in China has a five page discussion of comets
 * "Ancient and mediaeval observations of comets and novae in Chinese sources", Vistas in Astronomy
 * "Orbits of ancient and medieval comets", Astronomical Society of Japan
 * That is just a small selection of what is out there. More than enough to work up the prose into a decent article. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 23:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Conditional keep if the article is moved to Historic comet observations in China and if editors agree to improve & source the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. Too many dels to simply withdraw, but if these stipulations are met I can agree that a good article could come out of this page. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and move, this seems like an interesting article at the new name and with sources. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The article starts with making the point about ancient astronomical observations in China, and then uses the history of observations of Halley's Comet to make the point. That's not encyclopedic. Either this is about the history of observations of Hally's Coment (most of which is poorly-sourced listcruft written by ) or it's about Chinese astronomy (written by ), which already exists. The portion anyone can agree to keep is the portion that's not developed and some editors are voting keep for an article that is not present. I think WP:REALPROBLEM applies here. I'd be ok with userfy-ing this until it can be perfected. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I think this article has the ability to become pretty decent, but it has to avoid being just an indiscriminate list of occurrences and provide context. It seems like it's on a good start and I'd like to see if it could become more. South Nashua (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it should be noted that SpinningSpark has overhauled the article to remove the WP:LISTCRUFT and incorporate the sources that he found. Here's the diff from the article at time of nomination until now. Icebob99 (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2016 (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.