Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic web


 * 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 Observable universe. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 01:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Cosmic web

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article states the "[cosmic web] can be distinguished from large-scale structure of the universe which describe all kind of components, as matter and energy." I don't see that this is the case. The first reference given states "The large-scale structure of the universe is a complex web of clusters, filaments, and voids". The second one states something similar "The network of filaments with embedded clusters surrounding voids, which has been seen in maps derived from redshift surveys and reproduced in simulations, has been referred to as the cosmic web."

Open to a redirect to large-scale structure of the universe/Observable universe. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * delete - a metaphor, not really an astronomical term. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Observable universe, where it is mentioned. Cosmic web looks like an evocative metaphor that has been used by some groups but isn't in wide use. Even in the first cited paper, it's admitted that sheet-like structures may not fit neatly into the web picture. Nonetheless, the metaphor is verifiable in the literature and with roughly 30 page views a day, it is plausible as a search term. Hence redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Observable universe as originally created. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect, this is simply a junior synonym. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect, no content to merge. w umbolo   ^^^  13:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - The word is well-known, I would also think of redirecting but the word can also have its own article. DanielQ8 (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * how is it a distinct concept worth it's own article? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - If you do a quick Google Search] you'll see many results proving a notable rate of notability. Here are some links to prove a rate of notability for WP:GNG: 1, 2, and 3. There are probably more, thanks!! DanielQ8 (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , like I said, I'm fine with a redirect, but how is "cosmic web" a distinct concept from "large-scale structure of the universe" that would warrant its own article? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , yup, I have changed my !vote to !redirect. DanielQ8 (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. DanielQ8 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect - Based on discussion, see 1. DanielQ8 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sock comments struck. w umbolo   ^^^  18:44, 2 June 2018 (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.