Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vega-Bray Observatory


 * 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. Decision about whether to merge and where to merge can take place on the article's talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Vega-Bray Observatory

 * – ( View AfD View log )

NN. It is a commercial "recreational" observatory that now operates under a different name. It has no cites in the NASA/SAO ADS. It has no large (gt. ~ 0.8 m) telescopes. The text reads like advert. Thetrick (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This page has gotten spammy over the 7 years since I created it. Probably should just be redirected to San Pedro Valley Observatory... I'll try to create a page there.--Rayc (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it should be purged entirely. V-B never had any notability. --Thetrick (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RJH (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with Benson, Arizona then trim per WP:WEIGHT. It may also be worthwhile building a List of public observatories and merging a brief summary there. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the point of mentioning a defunct 3-4 room B&B? V-B had no influence on the body of astronomical knowledge, and it never garnered any more than PR-style mentions in newspapers.   And it's not even in Benson - it's about 2 miles outside the built-up area and outside the city limits AFAICT. --Thetrick (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The influence on the body of astronomical knowledge is irrelevant, as the same can be said of any planetarium and most public observatories. Its in the interest of science as a whole to have an educated and knowledgeable populace, and public observatories contribute to that goal. Placing it outside the city limits is entirely appropriate for an observatory. Two miles makes it readily accessible from that locale. Ergo, my preference remains a merge. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 14:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 10:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Satisfies WP:ORG. If it is spammy, then editing rather than deletion is needed. Notability does not require that a subject be still doing business at all, and it does not require that an observatory have a telescope of some specified size, and being "recreational" is not a bar. Coverage at  Los Angeles Times (March 5, 2000), Washington Post (June 28, 1998), |+Inn+offers+great+views&pqatl=google San Diego Union (Nov 10, 2002),  Arizona Daily Star (April 26, 1998), Benson News-Sun (June 15, 2007)], Hartford Courant (Dec 29, 2002), Macon Telegraph (May 16, 1999),  Scopereviews,com and more. Not showing up in Google News archive, but viewable through Proquest (subscription) are  "View skies, nothing but new skies: Runice, Jacky. Daily Herald [Arlington Heights, Ill] 28 Oct 2007: 5.," (112 words about this inn  and observatory), "The Duchins do a deal," The Globe and Mail [Toronto, Ont] 11 July 2003: G.4.  which has a paragraph about this subject, and says this is "one of the world's largest amateur astronomical observatories." Edison (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge some of the non-spammy content to San Pedro Valley Observatory, which is now the name of the facility.  It's notable per Edison; also see results at GBooks showing that this place was a legitimately notable tourist attraction, as well as receiving coverage in sources like the Smithsonian's Air and Space magazine and Forbes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2012 (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.