Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of planetary bodies

List of planetary bodies

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of planetary bodies

List of planetary bodies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article's information has been merged with List of spherical objects in the Solar System. The merge has however been contested by User:Dojarca‎ Serendi^podous 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and repurpose as a list of all objects classed as planets or dwarf planets by the appropriate body, regardless of whether or not they are in the solar system. This would mean deleting most of the moons from the current article. NullofWest Fill the Void 20:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There already is a List of extrasolar planets. Serendi^podous 22:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case please read my !vote as being for a reverse merge from that list to this one NullofWest Fill the Void 18:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment if the merge transferred the content of this article into another then it can't be deleted per the terms of the GFDL licence under which the content was released. This seems to be more of an editorial dispute rather than something that requires a deletion discussion, has a clear consensus on how the information should be presented been established? Guest9999 (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this article has received thumbs up from pretty much everyone involved except Dajorca. I started this AfD at Dajorca's insistence, because I didn't want get sucked into an edit war. Serendi^podous 22:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of spherical objects in the Solar System. The latter article contains the same information and the existence of a duplicate is not justified. It is better to have one good (or probably featured) list, than several substandard ones. Ruslik (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• redirect, hence finishing the consensus merge. (GDFL means pages cannot be deleted? Surely that is not true, merged pages are deleted all the time.)Yobmod (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This article contains information not present in the other articles, such as internal structure of the bodies and surface area not only for the bodies but also for planet-sattelite system. There is also groupping by region of Solar System. The article is a former featured list candidate and has a good potential after some minor corrections. It also rated mid-important in the astronomy project. I think there is no need for merge but in any case, merge does not mean article deletion. User Serendi^podous initially proposed merge with his article that would keep the structure of the List of planetary bodies. Now we see that he only wants to delete this one. He also claims he has a consensus for merge, but at the discussion page only one editor supported this move (Ruslik) and the other objected. --Dojarca (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect the proposed new article is supposed to be an improvement of the previous one. surface area is irrelevant since these bodies are spherical, and therefore the radius gives the same information; grouping by region is obvious in the color legend. it is a FFLC because it did not pass, while the replacement is aimed at doing that. also, the mid imp thing is irrelevant if it is a redundant article. Also, "planetary bodies" is extremely vague. one more note, the Sun is spherical too. Nergaal (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it gives the information, but we discuss here how the information presented, not only is it enough to calculate some other values. For example, combined area by region is not presented in that other article. Also note that the other article is not a list by itself, but a combination of different tables.--Dojarca (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the Sun, though it looks a bit odd up there by itself. Serendi^podous 09:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment An exclusively colour-based legend is of no use to someone who is colour-blind; using a monochrome monitor; viewing a monochrome print-put; or using a non-visual device such as a text reader or Braille device. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• By the way We have this list: List of Solar System objects. Do you think it is better than that you're going to delete?--Dojarca (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That list is in our sights too. I plan to merge it with four other lists after I'm done with this one. Serendi^podous 17:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The horizontal layout in List of planetary bodies has some advantages over the vertical layout used by List of spherical objects in the Solar System. First it's easier for screen readers and those that are colour-bind. Second with a little bit of changes the table could be made sortable. My other concern is that the List of spherical objects in the Solar System is that precision seems to be too high. Are the values really accurate to 8 digits? Compare with the fact sheets at http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html for example http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/index.html. That said a name for the merged article with "in the Solar System" seems more reasonable. PaleAqua (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)