Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objects visible from space

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. Discounting early comments as no longer relevant due to the substantial edits to the article, I find a consensus to keep. Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objects visible from space

(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]
- ~~Also, are we talking only about man-made objects, or should Ayers Rock be included? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Change to Keep. The article now discusses the concerns I raised here, rather than attempting to provide a list of objects. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:36, 14 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]

It is not a list now, so the above no longer applies to this article, which has gotten better but still needs some work. PleaseStand ^(talk) 11:23, 14 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]

Keep and rescue or userfy. Since when did "Start" become the minimum standard? This is a common trope or urban legend or even Your mother joke (as in, your mother is so fat, we can see her from outer space). It is notable and can be sourced. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested in the nom, I'd like to see it userfied for now; personally I don't think it's possible to expand, but let a user figure that out. — Timneu22 · talk 22:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded it quite a bit at this time. Please look at it and give me a word. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: indiscriminate, original research magnet, and poorly written at that. The great wall of china isn't even visible from space. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the point. See the article as it reads now. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Move to Article Incubator per author request and per author's thoughts on the article, respectively. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a valid encyclopedic topic. It also It now has hordes of references in it. Dream Focus 09:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the rescue effort has worked; the article I nominated does not look like the article that appears now. — Timneu22 · talk 09:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Bearian's work. Now THAT's how an article should be written. Mandsford 12:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the problem with this is two-fold... firstly it needs to define how far up (minimum) we are talking, secondly it needs to discuss "resolution"... but combining these two factors you get a pretty straightforward result ..that anything more than a given width (not length as per Great Wall) will appear due to simple optical science. In a nutshell anything natural or man-made, with enough contrast in relation to its background, becomes visible at width x in relation to height y above the earth.--Stephencdickson (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be some mention of the Kármán line, which is the conventional definition of outer space starting at an altitude of 100 kilometers above the surface of the Earth. I'm more surprised that nobody has complained about the title, since a world of objects are visible to me from the space that I happen to be occupying. If it's night time, an entire galaxy's worth can come into my field of vision. Mandsford 15:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SoFixIt - Which is easier, to vote for deleting an entire article, and to have several people get involved in a keep/delete debate (simply because one aspect of the article is unclear)? Or to clarify that aspect? When most people say "visible from space" they mean with the naked eye. Everyone knows that Google has photographs of every street and house in the civilized world. These things are much more easily seen then the earth-colored GW of C. But if the distinction between "visible to the naked eye" and "visible with binoculars" (or telephoto lens) must be made, then by all means suggest that we make that distinction - or just go into the article and do it yourself. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian added the information to the article more than an hour before your post. Mandsford 22:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, sorry, Bearian, I should have given you some appreciation instead of ranting like that. But pray hold me excused, because the hostile, "kill it before it's viable" approach grates on my nerves. I have probably spent more time defending the article than writing it, and that's lopsided. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Uncle Ed, who has my appreciation as one of the people who made Wikipedia possible, I'd offer the opposite viewpoint-- that this experience is actually confirmation that Wikipedia does function as a community that is building "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Though the Deletion forum may seem like a place where the spirit is "kill it before it's viable", what I have seen in three years of participating is that very few ideas are actually "killed" here. Nearly every action brings an opposite, equal and positive reaction in the form of people seeking a way to preserve the information. Sometimes, there's a rescue (as happened here), with sources being added and more information being gathered. Sometimes, the article creator is encouraged to keep working on the idea in his or her own user page. Sometimes, suggestions are made about how to place the content into existing articles and other places on Wikipedia. On those occasions where the information truly is erased from existence, it's not unusual for it to come back months later in another article. The path that it has taken may be different than what folks like you and Jimbo Wales envisioned almost ten years ago, but I think that it's validated the crazy idea that amateur writers can, when given the opportunity to do so, create a reference work that is just as reliable as a published encyclopedia, with a currency that a book cannot have. For the most part, the people you see here -- the hostile, the nice, the reasonable, the unreasonable-- are good folks, whose social skills are constantly improving as we argue over what Wikipedia should be. It is my hope that when the 10th anniversary is marked, you will be able to say that Wikipedia met and exceeded your expectations. Best wishes. Mandsford 01:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.