Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objects visible from space

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dream Focus (talk | contribs) at 09:18, 13 May 2010 (→Objects visible from space). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Objects visible from space

Objects visible from space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was just created. While the topic could be notable, there are virtually no objects that can be determined from space. The article says that "cities and dams" or something are visible. Maybe, but I don't see how the article can be expanded. Maybe someone can userfy this for a while to get some relevant content, but until then I do not believe it is worthy of inclusion, as it is unlikely to be expanded. — Timneu22 · talk 17:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no references, but if the creator can collect some reliable sources, then it should be fine. Qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can userfy it, if that's what you want. Of course, if nothing manmade can be seen from space without binoculars or a good camera, then that's all the article should say. But I was hoping to address the continuing dispute over whether the Great Wall of China is visible from space. And what instruments you need to see it, if naked eye observation has always failed so far.
Also, if the Great Wall is (barely?) visible, is anything else visible? How about an airport runway, which ought to provide a lot more contrast and be a lot wider than a wall made of (earthern?) material the same color as the background? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information seems like it should go on Great Wall of China, nowhere else. (You'd have a larger article if you listed things that cannot be viewed from space.) ;-) — Timneu22 · talk 17:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not clear whether objects visible from the exosphere should be included in this list, or where the exosphere ends and outer space begins. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow-- an editor who has contributed to Wikipedia since 2001 [1]. I don't understand why an article would be created out of original research (or maybe original synthesis, since I don't think he's been in outer space). Is this a test or something? Mandsford (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have created 1,100 Wikipedia articles. In nearly every case, I just made a stub: i.e., a paragraph or less of text. I then hoped that others would help me expand it (see WP:TEAMWORK). In recent years, it has become commonplace for other to expend more effort trying to kill such a stub, rather than help me flesh it out. (I find this puzzling, but I can always "retreat" and userfy the stub if the number of people trying to get on board is lower than the number trying to sink the article.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an oft-discussed topic and the claim that it is unlikely to be expanded is mere speculation at this point; Ed Poor was, when asked, able to expand it. It would be a shame to see this deleted. Kansan (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At this point I'd go as far as deleting based on WP:COPYVIO. — Timneu22 · talk 19:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Blanchardb and [2], there is no unambiguous definition of what should be included in this list, especially if we include the Great Wall of China, since we would have to include all the largest interstate highways as well. PleaseStand (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That contradicts Tim the nominator, who said there are virtually no objects that can be determined from space. So which is it? So many visible objects that the article would be too big? Or so few of them that there's nothing to write about? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SNOWBALL -- it's snowing!--IslandAtSea (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify and research further if you feel so. The Wall may be visible although in rare conditions. I don't want to comment on the notability of the topic, but it should have been researched better. East of Borschov (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment from creator: I'm getting the sense that (A) an article like this should not be submitted in an incomplete state, with the hope that others will join the writing team and whip into ship together, but rather (B) the originator should work on it in his own userspace until it reaches a certain level of viability.
    So shall I just userfy it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response It would give you the opportunity to work on it at your convenience. Wikipedia has changed quite a bit over the years (for the better, I believe), and it's the victim of its own success. I gather that in Wikipedia's salad days, the appearance of a new article would inspire others to add their knowledge to the article. Now, the appearance of a new article means that it will be inspected to see whether it is, on its face, a good encyclopedia article. Although I honestly believe that there are people who take a delight in nominating articles, the vast majority of the nominations are made by people who are concerned about the quality of Wikipedia, which is taken more seriously now than it was even five years ago. When I create an article, I operate under the assumption that it's likely to be examined with a critical eye, so I work on it in userspace first, where I have all the time in the world to provide enough sources needed to back up the statements made. It may take more time that way, but not as much time as it would take for me and for its supporters to argue about its continued existence. In addition, it sets a good example for others. I'm glad to see that the days of "this-is-a-stub" are becoming just a memory. Mandsford (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Objects_visible_from_space&oldid=361852496"