Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth's location in space


 * 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 Keep  I am closing this AFD as keep because no other result can plausibly emerge from it judging by the first two days of the discussion. Of course, from the purified point view of a relativist the question what is the Earth's location in the homogeneous and isotropic universe is meaningless. However, the vast majority of readers are not physicists, and even not all physicists are relativists. So, the question what is the Earth's location in the Universe does not seem to be so meaningless after all. Ruslik_ Zero 15:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Earth's location in space
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

As it is this is a non-article. It is table with some (unsourced!) factoids about the "topography" of the local universe. I don't see how this can be made in to an article in the tradiotional sense with a normal article structure. Nor is it really a list. Apparently, it was recently moved from template namespace to article namespace. Is there really a reason for this page to exist and if so in what namespace does it belong? TimothyRias (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it wasn't a template either. Why is it not a list? The information in this article isn't exactly Gnostic gospel, it can be easily found if needed.  Serendi pod ous  15:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep well sourced "article/list". Like many articles, I don't understand why this was nominated. Ikip (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this is exactly the sort of thing you expect to find in an encyclopedia. The kind of thing that school kids would like to read for a project. The justification for deleting is a justification for expanding. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, per Graeme Bartlett. Extremly useful, now well sourced, and encyclopedic by any standard. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  23:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. i suspect that it was nominated at least in part for having no lead or text outside the image and the chart. It seems very incomplete without that. so expand it and it should be fine. subject matter is perfect for an encyclopedia. the only rationale i would see for deletion is if this material is duplicated in another article, but presented better. still, a separate article on ths subject is good. reminds me of "powers of ten" by philip morrison.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. There is an abhorrent amount of people in the world who don't know the difference between the Solar System, a Galaxy and the Universe. The fact that even in its current, underdeveloped state, this article could help reverse such great astronomical ignorance and replace it with intelligence, that should really already be common knowledge, is enough to justify its keeping and expansion. Wikipedia is a place for more than just those who already know about the topic they are reading on, making the "the information can easily be found" comment irrelevant. RJW37 (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename or Merge. "Earth's location in space" is meaningless. Rename, perhaps to "Earth's surroundings" or "Earth's surroundings in space" or "selected distances of astronomical objects from earth." If a suitable merge target can be found, I would support that over a rename. At any rate, the list and graphic are both nice and should not be lost. Gruntler (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is the title meaningless? -- Cycl o pia -  talk  09:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Locations are relative, not absolute. You can talk about earth's location in a particular, given coordinate system, or earth's distance from the sun or from the center of the galaxy or from Andromeda or something. But location is always relative to some kind of measurement tool and "in space" isn't a measuring tool. Gruntler (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This I know all too well; however the title is perfectly understandable to anyone even if not formally precise. And, well, it is its location in the Universe 3D space: only it is a relative location. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  20:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. A lot of useful information presented in an easy to follow table. Just the sort of thing that encyclopaedias should have. HumphreyW (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Earth's location is space? Why it's right here, isn't it?  I'm going to save this to disc, however, just in case I get lost on my next trip. Mandsford (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Amply sourced, and definitely worth printing out and keeping in the glove compartment.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - well sourced and well written, a useful navigation aid (for navigating Wikipedia, that is !). Not entirely happy with title, even new title Earth's location in the universe, but can't think of a better one at the moment. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the idea of the article is actually quite neat; it just needs to be organized to be less awkward in how information is presented. Nergaal (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2009 (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.