Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transit of Venus from Uranus

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 delete. Sandstein 10:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transit of Venus from Uranus

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

I am batch-nominating 21 pages that all fall under "Transit of X from Y". These pages are nearly carbon-copies of one another, varying only with details such as the actual transit times/dates and minor trivia. The wording and the tone of these implies some very heavy OR and borders on a lack of a NPOV. The fact that none of these transits have been observed, coupled with the fact that they may never be observed, leads to an unnecessary set of pages with little more than crufty information.

I should mention that there are some pages that are actually decent (the full list is here, and those will be left alone. Primefac (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as gross failures of WP:N and WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but one as they're unreferenced speculation on something that has little-to-no chance of being observed any time soon. Not notable and mostly original research. However, Transit of Venus from Saturn does seem to have been observed by Cassini (spacecraft) e.g. [1]. I've not checked to see how extensive the results were, but it does seem to have received media coverage. Modest Genius ^talk 13:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as "unencyclopedic" (no notability). (Disclaimer: I checked only 5 of them randomly + the Venus-Saturn one, and I am ready to change my !vote on others - I trust the nominator on the "all are similar" claim.)

I am not convinced that the Cassini observation of Venus-Saturn is relevant: the subject of those articles is how powerful the spectrometer aboard Cassini is, not the event that was used for the test. I would argue the astronomic event in itself is pretty much insignificant, and falls under WP:MILL. This being said, the event certainly warrants a mention on Transit_(astronomy). Tigraan (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. There's no evidence of notability for these transit events, and as others have said, there appears to be a large amount of original research. With regard to Transit of Venus from Saturn, I agree with Tigraan's analysis; the media coverage discussed the transit as a test of Cassini's instrumentation, not as a notable event. Astro4686 (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and merge into one rationalised reduced and encyclopedic article for off Earth visible transits. I think overall this is mildly interesting. Individually all WP:MILL but aggregated together, not. Aoziwe (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would think Transit (astronomy) is a good place for that (though it is currently a rather poor article). I do not see strong merge material in the nominated article. Tigraan (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there's already a couple of statements about this on Transit (astronomy), so anything worth preserving could be added there. Perhaps some of the external links would be worth copying as well? Praemonitus (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not anyone has seen these events is irrelevant, they still occur and are notable as such.XavierGreen (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how is "this object passed in front of that object" a notable event? <insert pithy comment about a tree falling in the forest with no one around> Primefac (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, that comment is somewhat cynical given that Solar eclipses are generally considered notable. As list articles, I doubt there is even a need to delete them. -- Kheider (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make a fair point (up until you added the list bit), and my sarcasm/cynicism was probably not necessary, but we've observed all of the solar eclipses, and those articles actually have data and images and references (and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, of course). I should have instead referenced ITEXISTS as not being a valid reason for inclusion, but I had the whole "tree in the forest" metaphor stuck in my head. As response to the (edit conflict), these are not currently list articles, and we don't need 21 separate pages to have a list of the transits. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then Merge the content into one useful list article. They look like list articles to me. -- Kheider (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging them all into one article is an acceptable solution.XavierGreen (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The merge target would likely be Transit_(astronomy), and it would be quite dumb to have a subsection listing all possible "transits of X from Y" for any two values of X and Y, with 99% of individually non-notable items with no further information. (I guess that is not what you had in mind.) Having not been observed by humans eyes is indeed irrelevant, but an astronomical event that no human studied is likely non-notable. Tigraan (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding Kheider's analogy of solar eclipses being notable, I would argue that the reasons for this notability aren't applicable to transits/eclipses viewed from elsewhere in the solar system. Solar eclipses are notable when viewed from Earth because they (1) receive widespread, detailed attention in reliable secondary sources, (2) are frequently observed by millions of people, and (3) are of historical significance. These considerations don't exist for transits/eclipses viewed from other celestial bodies. Accordingly, I think that these articles need to establish that transits of X viewed from Y meet WP:N, but I don't think that they can do so. As for XavierGreen's original point, there are hundreds of thousands of known bodies in the solar system, and it seems inevitable that at some point, a transit could be observed from almost every one of them. These transits are so ubiquitous that I don't think that notability can be presumed. Indeed, I'm skeptical that this material should even be merged. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While there are hundreds of thousands of known bodies in the solar system, there are only 8 known planets and the transits of the outer planets are such an exceedingly rare event that such an occurrence is notable in itself.XavierGreen (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they've only occurred thousands if not millions of times since the formation of the solar system. What makes those happening around t = 3.5 billion years since the solar system has formed so special? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You would create a list article called List of solar transits and those that wp:I just don't like it could walk away. Planets transiting the solar disc are fairly rare events. -- Kheider (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could, but the difference between IDONTLIKEIT and GNG is pretty significant. The argument so far seems to be that these specific transit pages don't meet GNG. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a specific definition of notability that may not match any one person's particular view of the term. Best to stick with WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikiversity. These look to be thinly referenced, but sre still of interest to some, but they look to be too close to Original research to stay here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2016 (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.