Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celestial observation

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 redirect to Observational astronomy. The question is whether to delete first. We do that when there is something that actually should be removed from the history, such as copyvio or promotionalism or total confusion. But this is just a harmless poorly written essay. I do not think there's anything mergable, but if anyone does, it's there in the history. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Celestial observation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even if the vague statements and factual errors of the article were remedied, this article would be entirely redundant with Observational astronomy and Celestial navigation. These issues are discussed more fully on the article's talk page. Astro4686 (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Subsume into the 2 other articles mentioned. It is indeed redundant. Oppose redirection and deletion. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete, then recreate as a redirect to Observational astronomy. – Fayenatic London 13:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to Observational astronomy. I agree with the nom that the article is poorly written, but I don't see any problem dire enough (e.g., copyvio, BLP issue, nonexistent concept) to force a deletion of the article's history. A simple search in GScholar and GBooks shows the term is verifiable as being used in the celestial navigation literature and I expect that it is used as a general synonym for a general astronomical observation, too. Observational astronomy is the more general article, so best redirected there. --Mark viking (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Redirect as this seems best, no solid thoughts for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Subsume / merge with existing articles. If any relevant information is contained here, it shouldn't be lost due to deletion. 8bitW (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment from nominator. Thanks, everyone, for your participation in this discussion. Regarding the votes to subsume, I really don't think that there's anything worth preserving in the article; even if the factual errors are corrected, it would merely duplicate content (mostly in Observational astronomy). But if someone thinks that there is specific information worth merging, please let me know. As for the AfD outcome, I still feel that deletion would be preferable given the magnitude of the problems, but I'd be OK with a redirect without deletion. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2016 (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.