Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbital effects on climate


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Orbital effects on climate

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is entirely synthesis or original research, with virtually none of its content sourced to be about the title. "Earth's axial tilt": yes this explains the seasons, but isn't directly about the orbit or connected with sources to climate. "Earth's eccentricity": we are given a mathematical equation for an ellipse, and a description of how it changes, but no sourced discussion about climate. "Precession of solstices and equinoxes": again, this relates to the seasons but has no sourced discussion on climate. "External/Celestial forces": vague mentions of solar activity, but this has literally nothing to do with Earth's orbit. This is a poorly written student essay (per creation edit summary "Completion Report") not an encyclopedia article and doesn't seem salvageable. Reywas92Talk 22:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 22:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment It goes without saying that all the material covered here is already covered in much greater depth elsewhere - Axial precession, Orbital eccentricity, Axial tilt, Milankovitch cycles, and several others. A hub article that ties these together might not be a bad thing, but again, I would be surprised if that didn't exist already; although I couldn't locate it at this point. If there isn't one yet, this attempt needs a LOT more referencing and more dedicated summarizing (rather than expounding on random details) than what's in the article ATM. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Statements on Wikipedia require citations to reliable sources. This text does not meet Wikipedia's WP:Notability standard, which is the criteria for inclusion.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to be a nuisance, but this does not make sense. Notability is obviously not an issue (of course there are effects of orbital characteristics on the climate, and of course that is a notable topic). And undersourced is not a deletion criterion, as long as it can be shown that sufficient sources exist (which again is trivial here). The question is whether there is need for an article of that scope, given what we already have in other articles, and whether this is so fatally flawed in construction that it should be removed. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is an important and valid subject, but it reads like a poorly sourced essay. Should we WP:TNT it? It depends. If someone is going to improve it, then I think it could be kept. My very best wishes (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The topics of this article have been covered in several places already with greater detail. Because of all the problems with this page, I would be inclined to just delete it, although WP:TNT could work as well if a hub article is needed. Jguglielmin (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no need for a hub article for this.  WP:TNT as a last resort, but I don't think that's necessary. PianoDan (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment reads like a science journal  Devoke  water  17:18, 10 April 2021 (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.