Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SKY-MAP.ORG


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

SKY-MAP.ORG

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Queried speedy delete db-spam. It has many incoming links and has been here since 14:22, 16 May 2007 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has multiple references from, among other things, a new scientist article and you want it deleted? I'm not surprised the CSD was queried; it doesn't fall under DB-SPAM either. Spam would be if it was made entirely of advertising, POVy corporatespeak; this article doesn't fall under any of those things. Keep and recommend self-closure.Ironholds (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone else speedy-delete-tagged it. I queried the tagging. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So you queried the tagging because you thought it should be kept or because you thought it should be deleted but wasn't a speedy candidate? Ironholds (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I queried the tagging because I thought it should be kept. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why take it to AfD? Ironholds (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing the general notability guidelines as well as WP:WEB point 1: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Wikipedia exists to provide encyclopedic coverage about the subject, not to sell or popularize the subject.  Also note the conflict of interest in the article's creation (although the author is to be commended for his good-faith disclosure of it). Themfromspace (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But it has been published by independent sources. See this and this; I would have thought an article by a New Scientist writer particularly would be considered notable. Ironholds (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs improvement (the "how-to" section should probably be removed) but otherwise seems a valid article topic.--DaveG12345 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Related Comment - But I'm a bit surprised that screenshots (or "cut-outs") using this tool apparently automatically become free images owned by the user who cut them out, per this assertion attached to one of the article's gallery images - can that possibly be true? Contrast the "copyright notice" attached to this one - here the uploader again asserts ownership of copyright of the image, but the linked copyright notice from Wikisky indicates such images are available for non-commercial use, assuming proper acknowledgement (and presumably copyright remaining with Wikisky)... But I was under the impression that WP didn't qualify as "non-commercial" in this sense? The relevant Wikisky page currently asserts this fact no less. So I'm a bit concerned there are possible copyvios/misappropriations going on with these images (albeit in good faith). I am no expert on any of this though, and could very easily be completely mistaken, so I do no more than point this out here as a comment for others to perhaps pick up/clarify. --DaveG12345 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's open question related to proper license tagging of DSS2 images. I'm not a lawyer to properly address the issue. I do not recommend to use DSS2 or SDSS snapshots from WikiSky until the license issue fully resolved. On other hand WikiSky has many images from other sources with true public domain licenses, i.e. Hubble images, GALEX survey and other NASA images. Some images are available on WikiSky exclusively, like Hubble's globular clusters color images collection. friendlystar (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Regardless of the copyright status of the images -- the site is notable, as shown by the sources. BTW, the copyright question is not whether Wikipedia is a non-commercial site. Its whether the images are licensed for free use or only for "free" non-commercial use, because if its the 2nd, they don't qualify for our license and cannot be used here except in the limited way for fair use pof copyright material.DGG (talk) 04:26, 23 January 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.