Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galilean compound microscope

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. There's fundamental disagreement here as to whether this is an appropriate article subject and if enough reference material exists to sustain it. That's the critical question, and a consensus hasn't been reached here. There's also substantial disagreement about the proper scope of the article (pun not intended). If some of that can be discussed, it might be possible to have a future discussion that reaches a clear consensus as to what to do here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galilean compound microscope[edit]

Galilean compound microscope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed to find any reliable reference that states the notability of this device.Was de-prodded.This article was created along with several others in a spate of cataloging whatever Museo Galileo had, by a resident Wikipedian. Winged Blades Godric 11:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The book in the 1st link states that he build the first usable microscope and merely gives a description of the fine observation of bees--all in less than a single page!
  • The book in the 2nd link states that--there is very little documentation for his micro-telescope and that there was a complete lack of public enthusiasm about his microscope.In a book that specifically covers Galileo, if you feel that points to notability, well our definitions of the word vary.
  • The 3rd book states he discovered microscope(the details of the microscope is covered in less than half-a-page!) and in 2-3 pages goes on to describe how the bee's incident influenced the-the Pope.Winged Blades Godric 12:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Andrew Davidson. Historical artifact that has received sufficient coverage. Lepricavark (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Changed from Keep to Weak Keep, see below. Lepricavark (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm withholding my recommendation for now, but I heavily lean towards delete for several reasons. One, Galileo does not appear to be the first ever inventor of the compound microscope. Two, there's no assertion that even if this were his invention, that this particular scope was the first, which might make this microscope notable. Three, Galileo constructed several microscopes. How is this microscope notable as opposed to any other microscope he owned or made? Galileo used his microscopes as tools, and occasionally as gifts. Michelangelo was of course every bit as gifted in his own way as Galileo was in his. If we had a paint brush of his, it'd be in a museum somewhere. Even if we knew it was used on the Sistine Chapel, we would not have an article about the paint brush, as it is not independently notable of its subject (either the chapel or the artist). It's a tool, nothing more. This microscope was a Galilean tool, nothing more. Unless a direct connection can be made that this microscope (of the many he owned/made) was somehow fundamental to the furtherance of science that it sets it apart from all other scopes he used, then there's nothing to go on. Is it real? Yep. Was it Galileo's? Yep. Did he use it? Yep. None of these things make it notable, least of all by association. Convince me as to why this scope is so important? None of the links Andrew provides specifically identifies THIS microscope, nor even the design of this scope in particular as being noteworthy. We simply don't know. How many footballs has Peyton Manning thrown? Pick any random football he threw. How is that football notable? We could certainly come up with an article titled "Peyton Manning's football", and even well source it to the same standards being suggested here...and have an article about a completely non-notable football. We need more to sink our teeth into here. How is THIS microscope notable? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got some compelling points, but the counterpoints would be that the sourcing does exist and that I'm not sure I would treat Peyton Manning the same as Galileo. I'm not sure if that satisfactorily addresses your objections, and I'm not going to be overly dogmatic about the result of this AfD. Lepricavark (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lepricavark: Sourcing for what though? How do you know the sourcing is referring to this microscope? To continue the analogy, how do you know this football is the one Peyton threw to break the touchdown record, and not just "a" football? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I'm not really buying the Peyton Manning analogy. That being said, upon further review those sources are rather weak. I've downgraded to a weak keep for the time being. Lepricavark (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, insert any analogy where there is one of many and we're singling out one without connected sources. If we can't show that these sources (which as you say are weak) are not connected to this particular object, they are worthless. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Those are about individual objects with sources directly tied to those objects. We don't have that in this case. In this case, we have a microscope. It's one of many microscopes Galileo had. We don't know what he used this microscope for. In fact, he might have made it and never used it. We've no idea if this particular microscope has any connection to any fame whatsoever. All we have is that this is a microscope owned by Galileo. That's. None of the sources assert anything that supports THIS microscope being famous for any reason whatsoever. Please, dispute this if you can. I'm not seeing it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - This article is about a museum holding, not an invention or a scientific advance. The material in this article could be merged to Giuseppe Campani#Instruments. There is no evidence that this particular museum holding was the one used in any particular Galilean examination or discovery. An article about Galileo and microscopes would clearly be notable (the word microscope was coined by Faber to describe Galileo's occhiolino, after all) but that isn't what this article is. An article about Campani's microscopes could be spun off of the Campani article if enough material was added to warrant it, but again, that is not what this is. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! My !vote is for delete not merge, I don't see the need for a redirect and I don't think the material in the article belongs in the Campani article except as a passing mention. I was merely stating a possibility if the article's creator was looking to put their energies into improving wikipedia's coverage of the microscopes used in the Galileo's era. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepRedirect: using Andrew Davidson's sources, we should cover not only this instrument but all Galileo's compound microscopes here, as it is Galileo's innovation, discoveries and observations that are of most interest, along obviously with the instruments that he used. However, the sources are very thin (not substantial coverage, and the instrument isn't necessarily his invention, so a redirect to existing coverage is all we need here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep: Additional to Smmurphy's comment, the bigger issue is that the entire article is ripped directly from the Galileo Museum's site -- and that source page bears no Copyleft statement. --pmj (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's covered on the article's talk page

    The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Museo Galileo. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2016062110008037.

The institution is Italian and so I suppose the WiR is too. As they may not have good English, they may have decided that reusing the museum's English translation was an efficient way of starting an entry here and that seems quite legitimate per WP:BOLD and WP:BURO. The article can obviously be improved further and that's done by editing, not deletion, per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanation (I missed Winged_Blades_of_Godric's initial comment about this, which is in small text). That makes the article a lot more credible, and as Chiswick Chap mentioned it may attract expansion relating to Galilean compound microscopes in general. Changed vote accordingly. --pmj (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like the consensus may be that this article should be about Galilean compound microscopes in general, is that correct? Does anyone have any problem with the reworking of this page with that more general focus, with the museum entry currently discussed as an example? Smmurphy(Talk) 22:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my !vote above and added a context section to the page. I'm still skeptical that the original article satisfied notability, but I do think that a more general article could, and the material I've added is a suggestion what such an article could say. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Giuseppe Campani#Instruments. The microscope in question is in the Museo Galileo, but their page makes clear that Galileo did not make it. It's just a microscope from Galileo's time. I don't see how it can possibly be independently notable. -- 120.17.89.101 (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep historical device of significance even if it's not actually Galileo's. The article is well sourced. No reason to delete.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I can find no secondary sources discussing the specific object which is the subject of this article. -- 120.17.236.252 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The article says it is a "very important instrument" and formerly attributed to Galileo. Certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OR and problematic assumptions. There is absolutely no proof that this specimen is the original microscope. The coverage which exists talk about microscopes in general, not about this particular specimen.
  • The Lying Stones of Marrakech and The Amoeba in the Room are about microscopes in general. They very briefly touch upon Galileo's claim as an inventor. It is obvious that the history of microscopes is what is notable here.
  • Galileo's Muse is about inventions by Galileo. Despite this, the writeup is very brief. None of this is significant coverage. If we go by WP:WHYN, there is clearly not enough sources for us to be able to write a proper article.
  • I am clearly against merging any information as the information in the article is not useful. It leaves a messy attribution redirect behind.
  • Given a choice I will go with either a redirect or a delete. (There can also be multiple targets for the redirect here, so I am not opposed to deletion)
Honestly, just redirect or delete this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, we're getting into a tangle here. We don't know if this is Galileo's; it's not clear what he actually did; and the thin source material is already covered. The topic exists but is barely notable; let's redirect. I'm changing my !vote above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 18:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Object has devolved into an old microscope that someone famous might have used. Doesn't seem notable enough to stand on its own. If we had a picture it might be a nice illustration for one of the above suggested merge/redirect targets.Glendoremus (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just boldly moved the article to new title Galileo and compound microscopes, and modified it, with hope to break the deadlock of this AFD. It is allowable, though not usually recommended, to move an article while an AFD is going on. Here the AFD discussion has gone on long enough, with enough participants, to establish:
  1. there was some confusion about copyvio possibility, overcome by report of OTRS permission provided by the museum involved
  2. a fairly general sense of dislike for the narrowly focused topic of one example microscope that was once thought to be Galileo's but was more likely built by someone else, and is one artifact in the museum
  3. some consensus that a broader topic article would be fine, and that the specific artifact can obviously be covered as an example. Editor User:Smmurphy developed the article with a "Context" section towards expanding it in that way.

I think it will not be confusing to anyone to follow that the article has just been moved to a broader topic title. It is now possible to settle this by ratifying that an expanded topic is okay by the great majority of participants here. This avoids a needlessly punitive potential outcome of deletion, which would be insulting IMO to the museum/contributors. --doncram 05:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Note: I have written more below) The context which Smmurphy developed is already covered in the history of the microscope. We do not have any content about specific items, unless these items were independently notable. And the idea that deletion is a "needlessly punitive outcome" and an "insulting to the museum/contributors" is something which I very strongly disagree with. If the museum genuinely wants to support open information, they would understand our guidelines. If they do not know our guidelines, it is our duty to explain to them. And more importantly, many of us here are not arguing for a deletion but rather for a redirect or a selective merge. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although at broader topic "Galileo and compound microscopes" or another broad title which may be determined by editors participating usual editing practices, e.g. possibly a Requested Move at the article Talk page. --doncram 05:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now it's not about a particular microscope but rather about Galileo's contributions to the instrument. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under new title, per my comments above. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am sorry to say, but I have reverted the move and I am not happy with the way the article is now. While Doncram's contributions are in good faith, the topic of "Galideo and compound microscope" is not notable in itself. It is the history of microscope which is notable and this content needs to be covered there in context. (Which is exactly why I asked for a redirect). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To avoid confusion, I'm striking my !vote again. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now this maybe is getting confusing. Thank you Lemongirl942 for leaving the text of the "Galileo and compound microscope" in place at least (though I don't think your move helped). To any closer, I think Smmurphy and User:Clarityfiend and I all prefer for "Keep" but at a different title than "Galilean compound microscope". :) Or, User:Smmurphy, please do clarify if you no longer have a "!Vote" to make.
      • User:Lemongirl942, further above, stated their preference for "Redirect" to Optical microscope#Invention. Frankly I think there is material in the article now different than information there (e.g. this article, with reference, states Galileo's design was 2 concave lenses, vs there says Galileo's was one convex and one concave lens). And there is the example microscope. Lemongirl942, is it your wish to simply delete everything here now (by redirecting) or would you wish for anything to be merged (in which case your !Vote should be revised)? If that suggested target were in fact to be expanded, including working in mention of the example microscope at Museo Galilei and incorporating some of the OTRS-contributed text, I would not object greatly to an outcome of "Merger" for this AFD. If the point is just to delete by "Redirect", well, that seems unnecessary and I don't like it. :( --doncram 17:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not initially think that the particular microscope that was the subject of the original article has multiple sources that describe it, and for that reason, my original !vote was for weak delete. However, that article seems to me to follow policies on WP:Verifiability and WP:No Original Research, and one reason I !voted was that I was !voting at and cleaning a number of articles created by User:Archeologo (Museo Galileo), and I felt it was best to be on the record for as many of the related AfDs that I found and felt comfortable commenting at. As the article could be written without violating V and NOR, I was on the fence between no !vote and a weak vote, and I was happy for the opportunity to strike my first !vote. Regarding the present article, I thought a consensus was building for an action like doncram's move, and I added a context section to the article to suggest a pathway for such a move. I think a page discussing how Galileo helped popularize the instrument, the role of Galileo's technical ability in its early development, how his actions placed himself at the center of its development, the politics of his actions, etc. would make a suitable contribution to the encyclopedia independent of the more general article on the Optical microscope which has an invention section, and I !voted keep for the article at the new title. In my opinion, there is now at least three discussions going on here. First, the original AfD, for which I do not have strong feelings for keep or delete; second whether an article on Galileo's role in the early microscope would make a suitable one for our project, doncram is right that I think so; and third, whether this article should be retitled and reframed as doncram has done. On this third question, I think it would be the best outcome if such a retitling were done, as it seems like an appropriate outcome for the good faith contribution of Archeologo, whose work at wikipedia seems to me to be underappreciated. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:54, 20 March 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Galilean_compound_microscope&oldid=1074291780"