Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry


 * 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   merge to Space Interferometry Mission. merge, per apparent consensus here, regardless of the motive for nomination.  DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG, hard. Seems to be more GNAA padding. No significant coverage, etc. Two of the three sources were written by the "creators" of this technique. ("Independent of the subject") LiteralKa (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 04:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 04:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * comment (leaning on keep). It sure has few references, but the ones it has are from NASA's JPL. Those are not a random blog entry, those are strong references. We do not expect much 'net fuss about such subjet either. My only doubt is, is this actually (planned to be) used somewhere? Or is it a single paper about a possible technique? I have not found any application, but have not looked deep. {note: I have just copyedited the article} - Nabla (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where's the significant coverage? Where's the media praising this enterprising new astrometry technique? Until I see it, it fails WP:GNG. LiteralKa (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "significant coverage" does not mean - at all - the need to have media praise. It is well enough to be published by a reliable scientific institution (and I bet NASA's JPL fits that and it is not out there publishing any crap it fancies just to promeote it's author - certainly not as a rule...). So, no media praise is not a problem. That we have one single paper (still) and that it may be only that, one papper, is a problem. - Nabla (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood me, I said that it lacked significant coverage and no news coverage. LiteralKa (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like I did, yes. Anyway, I stick to assuming that being a work done at NASA, published by it, and at the very least echoed in several other reputable institutions is a good start for significant coverage (e.g. Harvard as seen using the search provided in the nomination intro).
 * Oh! Off course, the article says it: It is was to be used at the Space Interferometry Mission - Nabla (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhh... Could you rephrase that? I can't understand it. LiteralKa (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for the informal writing... I was asking myself, and in here, if this technique was really used anywhere, that would be a strong point for it. And the article says it is, it was to be used at a NASA project: SIM. I missed that info at first glance because I am not familiar with it. - Nabla (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nom, fails to meet even the most basic inclusion guidelines: it lacks any significant coverage (or any coverage, for that matter) and two of the sources appear to have been authored by the creators of this technique. 70.72.193.104 (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC) — 70.72.193.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Merge with Space Interferometry Mission since this technique isn't quite notable on its own, with only one news reference and a handful of scholar articles this better belongs merged with the telescope article until it becomes a technique worth writing home about. riffic (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment not a bad idea. I'd be open to this. LiteralKa (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Severely lacking in significant coverage, thus not meeting GNG. Zalgo (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Can go back to the work place it came from. Szzuk (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient significant sourcing independent of the material itself. Failing this, merge as suggested above, targeting Space Interferometry Mission. BusterD (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've asked to weigh in here, as it's sort of his field of expertise. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge: This definitely isn't worth its own article - it's not a widely used technique, as shown by there only being a few papers talking about it, and those papers have only been cited a few times. The text would fit in well with a general article on the different astrometric techniques (provided appropriate weight was given to each technique), but we don't seem to have such an article at the moment. So merging it with the SIM article sounds like the best approach for now - probably under the 'Instruments' section, which could be generalised to 'Instruments and techniques'. (Note: I'm an astronomer, but not an expert in this particular field.) Mike Peel (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge, per Mike. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Space Interferometry Mission. Doesn't seem to pass the notability test on its own, but entirely acceptable as a subsection of that article. Robofish (talk) 11:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per Mike.  Diego  talk 18:26, 27 July 2011 (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.