Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (3rd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. I am always reluctant to close an AfD as "no consensus", especially after a relisting, much discussion, and this being the third AfD; however, this article is really on the boundary of what our guidelines find acceptable. There are slightly more people calling for keep, and some of the earlier delete !votes have not taken into account the extra sources that have been added to the article during the AfD. However, the arguments put forward by Cunard are quite compelling. Few of the sources are independent and reliable, and then there is a blurry interpretation of exactly how significant the coverage has been. There is an awareness that the website exists. And some commentators find the site useful. And that could be interpreted as significant. FuFoFuEd made some useful comments that what was said in the sources was significant, even if the coverage wasn't. But FuFoFuEd !votes for a merge rather than a keep. There are comments that the website is cited by a number of Wikipedia articles, and that signifies something. Though when looking at the article itself, there is little notable information there. The article itself doesn't make a good case for the topic being notable. The main assertion is that it has a large readership. However "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity". So this keeps bouncing back and forth, so the only appropriate response must be No consensus  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Universe Today
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article about a website provides no indication of coverage in independent sources that would provide notability. I was able to find news listings from the site and descriptions of it in non-independent material (e.g., in the book the site distributed), but only a few passing mentions otherwise. Survived AFD in 2006 with arguments based on its Alexa rankings and the fact that it was mentioned in blogs -- stuff that would not be considered good arguments under current AFD standards. RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - interesting, but non-notable site. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Similar to, but slightly smaller than and less commercial-aerospace focussed than Space.com. Perfectly notable - for example it was mentioned just today on the Planetary Society's website in an article on how news stories on space topics are identified and brought to the public. Iridia (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or merge to Fraser Cain. I think there are enough references to it in Google Books and Google Scholar to qualify (search for universetoday.com), even if I can't find one truly in-depth (too may links to go through, see discussion further below for some independent coverage). Failing that, I see no reason why this can't be a section in the biography of its owner/writer, Fraser Cain. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that Badastronomy.com is a similar redirect. That seems the best solution here. The site has some independent coverage, but it's of limited extent, even though real world notability is not in doubt. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This site is used very often as a source in Wikipedia (61 articles link to this page, a lot more mention it). It definitely meet WP:RS. So for me, that's something notable. Others may disagree, but I feel that Wikipedia readers should definitely know what they are dealing with. Also per Iridia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. For those talking about it being "mentioned" or "references to it", I would point out that our notability guidelines call for significant coverage, not just mentions. I have yet to see an independent source that covered this site in any significant way. As for its use as a source, there are numerous sources that are not considered notable. --RL0919 (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We have dozens of articles about academic journals that don't have significant coverage in the sense of one or two big, third-party articles about them, but have significant coverage in the sense of many references citing them. The latter sense of significant coverage is in fact the accepted one in academia, and Universe Today deals in mostly academic matters. The idiot's guide version of that in WP:GNG works for some but not all topics, which is why that is a guideline. We also have exceptions like WP:PROF and others. This is clearly a site notable in the real world. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, seriously? There are numerous existing "exceptions" (that is, failures to follow) to WP:N and WP:V all over Wikipedia. That doesn't make them justification for more of the same. --RL0919 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, WP:OTHERRULESEXIST. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. No indication of notability; no discussion of the site in reliable sources. For journals, we expect at least appearance in standard indexes, and preferably more. If this web site had won some kind of award, as Badastronomy.com has, then it would certainly cross the line, but it hasn't. In fact this article is just an ad for the site. -- 202.124.72.139 (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * O RLY?  It's just a failure to search. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Neither of those news stories seem to be entirely independent of Fraser Cain, but they are at least something. -- 202.124.72.139 (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How is, say, Bloomberg News's writer Felix Gillette related to Fraser Cain? FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Both those articles mention UT only in passing, discussing other topics (Google and the "embargo system"). Both articles, in as far as they mention UT, simply repeat Fraser Cain's own words ("'If there are some changes you'd like me to make, just tell me what I need to do,' Cain wrote" and "'Everybody knows embargoes are broken, but nobody's willing to take the first step and abandon the system,' Fraser Cain, publisher of the Universe Today site, told ABSW"). As coverage, that seems very thin. -- 202.124.72.217 (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * These could be actual indicators of notability, if they are in fact independent. (Not sure what is the basis for the IP editor's comment, so I'll reserve judgment on that pending some reply.) By the way, I assume "failure to search" in this case means "failure to click on the 7000+ news search results, in the hope that one of them would be something other than a citation, reprint, or use of the words 'universe' and 'today' next to one another without referring to this website". Because that's what the first few dozen I tried were. --RL0919 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Or you could have read Iridia's link ."...This is an awful lot of news. It would be tough to cover all or even most of it, though a few outlets do try to cover a lot of it (notably Universe Today and space.com). NASA shows up over and over, in part because they've got a lot of exciting activity to talk about, but also because NASA is, hands down, the best of these organizations at selling compelling stories to the media. Go ahead and check around at some space news sites -- Universe Today, SPACE.com, MSNBC's Space section, or blogs like Bad Astronomy -- for the period from June 5 to 11 to see what topics they covered.  You'll see a lot of these press-released stories covered on most of those sites.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with that -- press-released stories are pre-selected for being interesting to the public, so it makes sense that multiple news outlets should choose to write about them.  And these sites aren't churnalist ones; the writers do independent reporting.  In fact I rely on Universe Today and Bad Astronomy to give me an independent look at big news stories.  I'm just pointing out that a large portion of stories that get covered are the ones that are selected for press-release treatment, and a lot of outlets cover the same stories." Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you consider that significant coverage, then we have different views of what that term means. The Bloomberg and ABSW stories, on the other hand, do appear to significant coverage, if the IP editor above is wrong about the claim of them being non-independent. (These should be added to this article if it is kept.) --RL0919 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

**Delete. I agree that this article is not notable and furthermore it looks rather spammy. Its just another amateur news site with no connection to professional research journals. The authors are untalented and unrecognised. None of them have degrees in astronomy, astrophysics or cosmology etc. The writing is extemely poor. Full of innacuracies and dreadfull grammar. This should have been deleted long ago. Exobiologist (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And speaking of indexing, it's indexed by Google News for whatever that's worth. I don't know of a more serious "news indexing" organization analogous to the indexing for academic publishing. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep . The sources mentioned above seem enough to keep it for now. I think the article needs to be rewritten and greatly improved, though. If it's been in this condition for a while, no wonder someone wants to delete it!Astrocog (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I thought about it some more, and decided that WP:WEB should really apply here. I know this is a popular website and one that I like. However, I considered the likelihood that a reasonable amount of material can be gathered to make the article encyclopedic and I realized that likelihood is tiny.Astrocog (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your account has spent most of its time on Wikipedia trying to get this one article deleted. You're also making derogatory statements against the site's personnel, which contradict what reliable sources say about it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Confirmed now as block-evading sock of User:Universe Daily, see . FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Verifiability. Despite two previous AfDs and over five years of existence (this article was created on 11 January 2006), this article does not cite any reliable sources. The sole source is this Alexa link. Tantamount to a directory entry, Alexa links cannot be used to establish notability because they are not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic. A Google News Archive search and a Google Books search return passing mentions. Notability requires that topics receive nontrivial coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources. No one has been able to provide even one such source. The article currently fails the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability. As to Notability (web), I do not believe passing it would allow this article to remain. As wrote at Deletion review/Log/2011 August 12: "DRV has tended to find, of late, that the GNG trumps all SNGs. I like this: it feels right to me that there should be a simple test, and that inclusionists should not get to argue that meeting a SNG prevents deletion, and also that deletionists should not get to argue that failing a SNG leads to deletion. I'd like this simple and clear view to continue, which means I endorse the finding in this case. As I've said before, I think this means we can go around demoting the SNGs to essay status." I agree with S Marshall's position on subject-specific notability guidelines' being trumped by the general notability guideline. Therefore, I support deleting this article for failing Notability and Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the most absurd vote I've seen here. The contents is clearly verifiable and even supported by inline citations. The only question is whether it's wp:notable enough. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So I rewrote and cleaned up the article. If further evidence of notability is required, then surely
 * covers it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * covers it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * covers it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * covers it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

  Analysis of the sources in the article by :   – Alexa is not a reliable source because there is no editorial oversight over the page. Tantamount to a directory listing, the website does not establish notability because it is not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic.  – Universe Today's privacy policy is not a third-party reliable source.   –  Universe Today's contact us page is not a third-party reliable source.   – the source states:  Google Book states that there is "1 page matching 'Universe Today' in this book". A passing mention does not meet the "significant coverage" required by Notability.   <li> – This Dictionary of Minor Planet Names states: In this dictionary of minor planet names, Fraser Cain is mentioned because a planet is named after him. The mention of Universe Today is tangential. It is insufficient to pass the requirement of "significant coverage" at Notability. </li> </ol> <li>
 * Keep - As a popular astronomy web site that has been online for more than a decade, one would expect that this site would meet the WP:GNG. As noted by Irida and FuFoFuEd, these sources do in fact appear to exist. Cleanup-type issues as highlighted in some !votes here are not good reasons for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

– at first glance, this source appears to suffice. However, the author writes: This source is neither reliable nor secondary. Its lack of neutrality makes it an unreliable source so it cannot be used to establish notability. </li> </ol> <li> – the source states:  That Universe Today is tangentially cited as an example does not establish notability. </li> </ol> <li>

– this source is being used to verify "Several peer-reviewed papers have been written about the impact of Universe Today in space-related news." in the Wikipedia article. The source states: In addition to this being an egregious misrepresentation, the source is not secondary and has said nothing about Universe Today's impact in space-related news. </li> </ol> <li> – see #8. This article shares a coauthor, Fraser Cain, with the above source. </li> <li> – the source states: This passing mention does not establish notability. </li> </ol> <li> – the source's author is the same as source #6. </li> <li> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_13/b4221044336007.htm – Universe Today receives some coverage: "Fraser Cain realized on Mar. 2 that his 12-year-old astronomy website had lost 20 percent of its traffic in five days." "Like every Web business, Universe Today gets a sizable portion of its traffic via Google, which accounts for 65 percent of U.S. Web searches, according to Nielsen." Universe Today began appearing lower on results pages when Internet users googled astro-related topics. So Cain logged onto a Google forum to testify on behalf of his site's quality. "If there are some changes you'd like me to make, just tell me what I need to do," Cain wrote. Elsewhere in the forum, distraught business owners—financial advisers, lingerie salespeople—raged and pled for clemency. "I'm a smoldering cinder from last week's napalm strike," wrote one publisher. At Universe Today, Cain says he's not waiting for a response from Google. If astronomers can figure out black holes, his thinking goes, Webmasters can handle Google. "We're in the dark right now," says Cain. "But complaining about it doesn't do any good." I do not consider this to be "significant coverage" of Universe Today. Titled "Matt Cutts: The Greenspan of Google", the article is mainly about Matt Cutter and Google's search-engine optimization. Universe Today is used to frame a discussion of search engine optimization. It is, though, much better coverage than the previous 11 sources. Excluding the quotations from people affiliated with Universe Today, there are roughly five sentences about Universe Today in this 36-sentence article. </li> <li> – the sole coverage of Universe Today is: The remainder of the article discusses various other websites such as Embargo Watch and  Faculty of 1000 (F1000). </li> </ol> I appreciate the work has spent sourcing this article. However, because the sources lack the depth and reliability mandated by Notability, this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC) </ul>
 * By Cunard's accounting standard, an interview with S conducted by R has virtually zero coverage of S, because only the questions by R are independent, and those don't tell us anything about S. Cunard forgets that the whole purpose of such a journalistic piece is that R considers S interesting / notable / whatever and wants his public to hear something about S. Similarly, Cunard's argument includes the assumption that every coverage not greater than, say, 1000 words, equals zero, therefore Cunard concludes that this topic has zero coverage in reliable sources as a sum of negligible quantities. If academia worked like, 1000 citations would be worth nothing, and being indexed by a specialist service would also be worth nothing. This is not how the real world works though. I understand that thinking is too hard for most Wikipedians, therefore, we need a simple formula for notability: sum ( word_count > 500 ? 1 : 0 ). The amusing side of that is when people get confronted by obvious non-notable pieces like WP:109PAPERS stories and restaurant reviews in the local section of NYT. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A collection of passing mentions does not amount to significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we have a different definition for passing mention. For instance, the passage "It would be tough to cover all or even most of it, though a few outlets do try to cover a lot of it (notably Universe Today and space.com). [...] Go ahead and check around at some space news sites -- Universe Today, SPACE.com, MSNBC's Space section, or blogs like Bad Astronomy -- for the period from June 5 to 11 to see what topics they covered. [...] And these sites aren't churnalist ones; the writers do independent reporting. In fact I rely on Universe Today and Bad Astronomy to give me an independent look at big news stories." I read that as an endorsement from the writer that UT is one of the few notable/valuable sites in this area, not a passing mention among umpteen sites. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources mention Universe Today; I agree that some even speak favorably of it—in passing mention. By "passing mention", I mean that the coverage is tangential to what is being discussed. Cunard (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me put it another way: if Wikipedia had a Astronomy websites article/category, what would you include in it based on that source? FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because that source does not nontrivially cover any of the astronomy websites mentioned in it, I would be unable to include any of them in an astronomy websites category. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, not every source is present to established notability, many are there because of WP:V. In particular, WP:PRIMARY, explicitly states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Saying "Ha! You used the site itself to source basic claims made about it, like who's in charge, and who's the editor proves it's non-notable! We should have a peer-reviewed third party source to establish that Nancy Atkinson is in fact the senior editor at Universe Today" is utterly ridiculous. Likewise sources that like are dismissed with the baCK of the hand because you can only see one sentence from a Google excerpt is just nonsense. The full article's available and covers UT, BA, (more specifically the BAUT foms) very extensively, as part of conferences held by the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. If you bothered to read it, you'd see it's far from promotional material, it's a rather terse analysis of the behaviour of BAUT forum users, as what it means for online astronomy communities in general.
 * But you know, you're absolutely right, being the biggest astronomy news site out there means = not notable enough for Wikipedia. That makes sense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that not every source is used to establish notability. However, I analyzed all of the sources to demonstrate that none of them establish notability. For, it would be better to have access to the entire source but I have access to who the authors are: "Authors: Cain, F.; Gay, P. L.; Foster, T.; Plait, P." Per source #8, F. Cain is "a publisher of Universe Today". This source cannot be considered a secondary reference and therefore cannot be used to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think sources the presented here are reliable, and their information should be better incorporated into the article, if it stays. I'm still not convinced it needs to be kept, however. The claim that the website is the biggest astronomy news site cannot likely be verified. The sources shown so far seem to me to constitute a small section in what the page would have. I don't think the CAP article is a conflicted source, merely because Fraser Cain is an author on it. Because it's from a peer-reviewed publication (CAP is a respected journal about public outreach in astronomy), I think that is enough to show it is not a self-published advert from Cain. Does the CAP article describe the context and background of the website? If so, that's good. I just remembered that Pamela Gay and Fraser Cain have been interviewed on a popular podcast, and here's the link: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=95 I haven't listened to the interview recently, but I wonder if Universe Today is described there, and placed in a context relative to other astronomy sites. If so, the podcast can be cited. Good luck.Astrocog (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I rambled a bit there. I just need some more convincing on this to keep it, rather than have it redirect to Fraser Cain's page, or be a part of some larger article. More sources that will build the encyclopedic stuff is what I'd like to see.Astrocog (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * That CAP is a respected journal does not negate the fact that the article cannot be considered a secondary source because of the involvement of Universe Today founder and publisher F. Cain. While it may be considered reliable, it cannot be used to establish notability. F. Cain is predisposed to discuss his creation in the article. I don't think a merge of Universe Today to Fraser Cain is helpful. Cain is likely non-notable due to the lack of reliable sources about him. Fraser Cain's Wikipedia article is sourced to three articles written by himself, a directory mention, and the website of Astronomy Cast which he co-hosts. A Google News Archive search ("Fraser Cain" -"by Fraser Cain"), a Google Books search return no secondary reliable sources about him. His short article cannot be further expanded and should likely be deleted. To include more information about Universe Today in his article would be coatracking. A redirect would also be unhelpful because there is and can only be a passing mention of Universe Today in Fraser Cain's article because of the coatracking concerns. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fraser Cain not notable??? He's the founder and publisher of Universe Today and host of Astronomy Cast! The guy has a friggin' asteroid named after him because of his contributions to Astronomy news (aka UT and AC)! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Cunard here. His point about the CAP journals is solid, and now that I've looked at their content, they don't provide anything more than a mention of the website without discussion. I also looked at Fraser Cain's page, and I have to say I think it may be up for deletion in the future, too. There's just not enough to go on. Because somebody has an asteroid named after them is not enough. Asteroids are named by the people who find them, generally amateur astronomers, who name asteroids after friends or people they admire. The amateur who named the asteroid was likely a listener of Cain's podcast. Look, I wish this were not the case, because I like Cain and the work he does. But my personal appreciation of AstronomyCast is not enough to be lax on standards.Astrocog (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets GNG, and also I am opening a horsemeat burger stand, horsemeat goes very well with bacon and beer. :)--Cerejota (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Cunard makes a compelling argument about how the news website lacks evidence of notability. I'm inclined to agree.  There's nothing wrong with the primary-sourced information, but it doesn't contribute to fulfilling WP:WEB or WP:GNG.  Also, let's not get into debates about Fraser Cain here.  Save it for another discussion. <b style="color:green; font-family:Corbel;">I, Jethrobot</b> drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable website. Doesn't meet criteria for keeping. I have little else to add as Cunard has already given substantial cause for the removal of this page. Astronomy is a rather secular topic by itself with few followers but even among news groups devoted to astrophysics, astronomy and cosmology the site gets very little mention. Runningbackwards36 (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC) — Runningbackwards36 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep- this page links to an independent source that, in all likelyhood, covers the subject in detail. Unfortunately it's locked up behind a paywall, however the summary indicates that UniverseToday is a major focus of it. Since UniverseToday was, in my opinion, close to meeting WP:GNG without the source I found, I think this pushes it well over the edge. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  08:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The link which provides has a list of articles published by the American Association of Physics Teachers. I find one article that mentions "Universe Today" in its summary. The link to the article is here. Because the article requires a log-in, I have saved it and placed it at https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/kdgcZh. I will let editors make their own judgment about whether this source establishes notability. Cunard (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it does not. That's a monthly column about web resources for physics and astronomy teachers. The resource focused on, in one paragraph, is the podcast Astronomycast, and the article merely mentions that Astronomy cast is hosted by Fraser Cain, who edits Universe Today. There is no detail about Universe Today...in fact, nothing of substance is said. This article cannot be used to establish notability.Astrocog (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Astrocog; this source does not sufficiently describe the subject in-depth to fulfill the general notability guidelines. <b style="color:green; font-family:Corbel;">I, Jethrobot</b> drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this, plus all the others, and the endorsements from other organizations like The Planetary Society, does fulfill the GNG. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing evidence of the significant coverage needed for GNG. It has already been shown above that the many sources referred at best mention the existence of the website, but do not provide significant coverage of the website itself, which is what I interpret the GNG to be requiring.Astrocog (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Question - Since this is my first time participating in once of these discussions, I'm not sure how long this needs to go on. What is the next step for making a decision one way or the other here? It seems to me that everything that can be said has been said.Astrocog (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing as no consensus is probably the way to go. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:22, 29 August 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.