Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mnemonics for star classification


 * 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 Delete Its not sourced, mostly original research and not encyclopaedic. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

List of mnemonics for star classification

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Ok some of them are pretty funny but the page is totally unencyclopedic and nothing is, or could possibly be, referenced. Has to be deleted. Greatestrowerever (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to agree with GRE's nomination.  This is completely non-encyclopedic, vio.'s WP:NOT and WP:V. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the creator of this article.  The verifiability of this list does not seem to be applicable.  Ask yourself: Is this a mnemonic for star classification? If so, it is! Verifiability with external sources would be more applicable for a list of French monarchs as it would not be self-evident.  I did re-read the "Wikipedia is NOT" page and did not find the clause you are referring to.  Does encyclopedic content mean "Does Encarta have a similar article?"  If so, I would like to point to the fact that Wikipedia currently has 25 more times articles than Brittanica (the next biggest English encyclopedia). Stellar mnemonics, by the way, are taught in any introductory astronomy course, and I would have no objection to similar lists.  Would you?  cprompt (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I posit that you do not need to verify a mnemonic and that the content is not unencyclopedic. EvilTeaCup (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC) — EvilTeaCup (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete &mdash; this appears to be a completely non-notable subject, and has no sources verifying any of these terms, or asserting their notability. Contrary to the above assertion, such sources are required to prevent original research &mdash; such as my newly coined meme "Oh Bad Articles; Forget Getting Kept, Methinks Lovingly". --Haemo (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but discard what is not sourceable. Some of these have a long history, others are WP:NFT. The page may have originated as a variation of this. --Dhartung | Talk 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Old bullshitters and fucking goofball kids...Merge to mnemonics. Every good boy does fine, may I have a large container of coffee, my very elegant mother just sat upon nine... never mind, Pluto is not a planet anymore.  There is probably one that was the original, and all the rest are one-upsmanship.  Worth an entry in the main article, but all the variations on OBAFGKM are not worthy of an entire article.  Mandsford (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete It is encyclopaedic and there are an infinite number of mnemonics for star classifications, the important factor is what is the criteria needed before they can be placed on the list, until a firm criteria is present I'm for delete. --Sin Harvest (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as criteria goes, how does this sound? Mnemonics related to "current" events are removed (no more Bill and Monica), and the list is kept short, with no more than 40% of the mnemonics unsourced.  cprompt (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm No that doesn't sound to good (having said that this is beginning to delve in to personal opinions). It doesn't "cut it" for me because the current events criteria only determines what doesn't belong there not what does belong there. The 40% unsourced thing helps thing along as that mean that the majority of the mnemonics is referenced but I have a strong feeling that you will end up with heaps of stupid/unnotable/etc mnemonics sourced from textbooks that authors strung up on the spot. --Sin Harvest (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. While the "original" mnemonic is very notable and should be mentioned in appropriate articles, most of the mnemonics on this list seem just made up. --Itub (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2008 (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.