Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch constellations

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. No prejudice against recreation as a properly sourced and NPOV article. A Train^talk 09:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch constellations[edit]

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

A one sentence article basically about the template and links to Dutch cartographers/explorers. All the information on it is present elsewhere. This article does not appear to serve much of a purpose. TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @TheSandDoctor: @Shawn in Montreal: @Marcocapelle: @Zingvin: @AstroLynx: Fails WP:NPOV This page was seemingly deliberately created to promote Dutch-related pages, and was introduced by User:Zingvin on the Constellation page (and other related subjects). I.e. Here. [1]. On this Constellation page there has been a concerted effort to promote this, easily seen by the the number of reverts I have made by several different users pushing the same promotional edits.

This includes anonymous editors: User:203.205.34.102, User: 1.53.54.186 These edits being a suspected sockpuppets from the edits here.[2] ), and recently User:190.10.149.71 [3] - all relating to the same subject and/or Dutch articles. Notable all of these editors have appeared in this page's own revision history and all around the same time and all suspiciously after Zingvin's initial edits .[4] Another sock suspect is User:Ziaozi who added this. [5] or User:42.117.77.225 here.[6] (with User:Zingvin adding these categories here.[7])

My own complaint is that these edits are seemingly nationalistic and greatly overstate their importance, as I stated after this edit.[8] This editor has multiple times, as seen on the "Revision history of "Constellation""[9], repeatedly has added the same text several times, and ignored others advice. Worst, they have not engaged via the Talkpage, and have avoid gaining consensus. Also the editors above argued on Dutch constellations here.[10] and here.[11] Worse again, they ignored advice. (Further discussions of this being overstated appear under "More on Plancius" here.[12]

I am also concerned with User:AstroLynx, whose discussions seems to promote rather than following gaining good consensus and avoiding WP:NPOV as highlighted in this discussion on Petrus Plancius here.[13] AstroLynx did similar things here.[14], and notably stating "Bayer is therefore often mistakenly credited for introducing them." and really looks like WP:OR

Please note that I am not in any way involved in the creation or promotion of the above-mentioned page. If you have any problems with my edits regarding the origin of the southern constellations, for which I prefer to cite relevant rather than outdated sources, please address them directly on the appropriate talk pages or on my talk page. AstroLynx (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...for which I prefer to cite relevant rather than outdated sources." Sorry evidence says the contrary, as per your admissions to my linked pages above. All I'm saying is the recent behavior is suspicious and likely agenda driven. You may or may not not be involved, but the direct evidence is as presented as I see and experienced it. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you accuse me of being a sockpuppet, you will have to present better evidence. Otherwise it is just malicious slander. AstroLynx (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AstroLynx: "If you accuse me of being a sockpuppet..." Please read more carefully I've never suggested such things, simply based on your many useful contributions in your own contribution list. Those that could be sockpuppets are those mostly reverting Dutch pages only to support this topic as IP addresses. (I've only mentioned you here to be transparent.) If I've inferred you are a sockpuppet, I unreservedly extend my apologies. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted – discussion closed. AstroLynx (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note; I have recently greatly modified the Constellation page to remove this bias. Possible sockpuppetry here needs further investigation IMO. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Can we block anonymous users? If so, this should also be taken to WP:SPI. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Can we block anonymous users?" Yes if they are proven sockpuppests. Multiple users reverting documents for the same kind of agenda just seems to say yes!

As it plainly says above: "Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive." Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The question of how Dutch astronomers classified the heavens into constellations is an interesting issue, which might usefully have an article. What we currently have is Category:Constellations listed by Petrus Plancius, which is inaccurately named since it covers other cartographers too, and the template. This article is trying to be a main article for the category and template, but is currently failing to be such, as it is a minute stub. We have recently had a lot of category-spamming on Dutch subjects, but this is not probably part of it. I would suggest renaming the category to reflect its content and tagging this article for expansion, unless we have a general article on the subject already, I mean on the three astronomic cartographers involved. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 02:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - GretLomborg (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of Dutch inventions and discoveries already covers a similar topic under "First systematic charting of the far southern skies (southern constellations) (1595–97)". An article of Dutch astronomy in a particular period might be notable if sources exist treating the topic as a whole, but as it stands this is no more valid than constellations named by people from Liverpool from 1600 to 1700. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:15, 19 July 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.