Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astro-Physics

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. (non-admin closure) Arfæst ! 03:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Astro-Physics[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. No substantial reference provided. Please add references if notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to astrophysics, rather than delete.—S Marshall T/C 14:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its about a company not astrophysics as you have suggested to redirect. Doesn't make sense to redirect.Lakun.patra (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I suppose it is a plausible search term for someone trying to arrive at the astrophysics article, so while in essence the article about this company would be gone, we would leave a redirect in its place for a different reason. "Pepper" @ 16:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to astrophysics as a plausible search phrase from someone trying to find that article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable manufacturer of telescopes and telescope mounts. Ajh1492 (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything at all to support that claim? St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – From visiting the company's website, the impression I get is a small company that may not have much market share but does make high-quality products for discerning users. According to the website, they have two user groups on Yahoo, which I visited and they seem to be active. If someone wants to save this article, that would be a good place to ask about what makes the company notable. We'd need published secondary sources. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and I'm happy to accept that they are a non-notable manufacturer of high-quality telescopes and telescope mounts. I'm not taking anything away from the products they make, but high-quality products do not make a company notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Astrophysics which is what, I believe, most readers would be searching for with this term. This current article fails WP:CORP and would otherwise be deleted. Good products — yes. Should the company become notable at a later date, a dab hatnote could be added to the Astrophysics article for Astro-Physics, Inc.. Note: the redirect at Astro-Physics, Inc. should be deleted. --Bejnar (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 16:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Harrington, Philip S. (2011-02-05). Star Ware: The Amateur Astronomer's Guide to Choosing, Buying, and Using Telescopes and Accessories (4 ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 96. ISBN 978-0471750635. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
  The book notes:
  Astro-Physics. Astro-Physics is a name immediately recognizable to the connoisseur of fine refractors on rock-steady mounts. Owners Roland and Majorie Christen introduced their first high-performance instruments in the early 1980s and effectively revived what was then sagging interest in refractors among amateur astronomers. Now, two decades later, Astro-Physics refractors remain unsurpassed by any other apochromat sold today.
  As this edition of Star Ware is published, Astro-Physics is redesigning its line of refractors. Only the 160EDF, an exceptional 6.3-inch f/75 instrument, remains at present. Therefore, rather than offer speculation here, I'll ask that you visit the chapter 5 supplemental material found in the Star Ware section of www.philharrington.net. Information, test reports, and owner comments will be posted and analyzed there as the information becomes available. But two things are likely, given Astro-Physics' past record of performance. First, any instrument wearing the Astro-Physics name will undoubtedly be the finest of its kind. However, because of high demand and limited production, delivery will likely take years. Considering the nearly instant availability of fine apo refractors from Takahashi and Tele Vue, waiting that long for an Astro-Physics refractor is difficult to justify.
2. English, Neil (2012-08-30). Classic Telescopes: A Guide to Collecting, Restoring, and Using Telescopes of Yesteryear. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 184–185. ISBN 978-1461444237. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
  The book notes:
  In the 1980s and 1990s, Astro-Physics optical designs continue to innovate with each new design, new levels of performance were achived. The quality of construction of the tube assemblies, sophistication of the mounts and range of accessories have also improved year upon year.
  Although most amateurs associate Astro-Physics with triplets, the company also churned out a limited run of double ED refractors (Fig. 10.6). Jeff Morgan, a telescope maker and avid observer based in Prescott, Arizona, was kind enough to share his experiences regarding his recent purchase of an older 120 mm doublet Astro-Physics refractor offered between 1990 and 1992:
  [long quote from Jeff Morgan]
  In the late 1990s, Astro-Physics also offered even smaller travel 'scopes for the discerning amateur astronomer on the move. Prominent among them were the Astro-Physics Traveler, a 105 mm F/6 triplet apochromat and, at about half the size, the 90 mm f/5 'Stowaway.' Even by today's standards, these instruments are so well thought of that their price tags on the used market have, until very recently, appreciated (Fig. 10.7).
3. Mollise, Rod (2009). Choosing and Using a New CAT: Getting the Most from Your Schmidt Cassegrain or Any Catadioptric Telescope. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-387-09772-5. Retrieved 2014-12-31.
  The book notes:
  Astro-Physics (A-P) is almost legendary in the amateur astronomy community, mainly because of the outstanding apochromatic refractors this Illinois company produces. Surprisingly, A-P is also revered by CAT users due to its line of heavy-duty go-to GEMs, mounts with sterling reputations for quality and capability,. A-P produces a full line of mounts, led by the newly introduced 3600GTO, the El Capitan, a monster of a GEM that is able to support scopes weighing up to 250 pounds.
4. Gary, Alex (2006-10-26). "High-end telescope maker goes under microscope". Rockford Register Star. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
5. "Get a closer look at the heavens with telescope made here". Rockford Register Star. 2006-07-20. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
6. "Astro-Physics to be profiled on TV show". Rockford Register Star. 2006-12-25. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Astro-Physics to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Another book source (Choosing and Using a New CAT: Getting the Most from Your Schmidt Cassegrain or Any Catadioptric Telescope) added. Cunard (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I asked Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) to reopen and relist this AfD here after he closed it as "delete". Cunard (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – On the basis of the new cites and edits by Cunard. The Star Ware book got good reviews in Astronomy and Sky & Telescope, and Sky & Telescope has a link to the book's home page. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case move to Astro-Physics, Inc.. --Bejnar (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) says:
Convention: The legal status suffix of a company (such as Inc., plc, LLC, and those in other languages such as GmbH, AG, and S.A.) is not normally included in the article title (for example, Microsoft Corporation, Nestlé S.A., Aflac Incorporated, and Deutsche Post AG). When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate (for example, Oracle Corporation, Borders Group, Be Inc., and Illumina (company)).
I don't think the article should be moved to Astro-Physics, Inc.. Cunard (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: I disagree, the more likely target for the search "Astro-Physics" is "astrophysics". The company, disambiguated with the "Inc." per guideline, nicely quoted above, can have a dab hatnote on the Astrophysics page. --Bejnar (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No disambiguation is needed because Astro-Physics and astrophysics reside at different titles.
Using a method at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic?, a Google search for Astro-Physics returns both links about the company and links about astrophysics. Links about the astrophysics topic are correctly spelled "astrophysics" and not misspelled "Astro-Physics". The company Astro-Physics is the primary topic for the title "Astro-Physics".
If users misspell astrophysics as Astro-Physics, they can access astrophysics through the hatnote at the top of the article. Cunard (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic is exactly the correct question. Primary topic should not be based on "correct spellings" but on where the majority of reader/searches want to end up. --Bejnar (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per those sources found above (passing WP:CORPDEPTH. No move necessary. This would be the primary topic for "Astro-Physics" and any confusion could be cleared up via a hatnote. A primary topic doesn't automatically take over all possible punctuation and capitalization variations. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:44, 2 January 2015 (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.