Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faulkes Telescope South

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. Strong consensus to keep the article. CheersCoffeepusher (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faulkes Telescope South[edit]

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

Non-notable scientific instrument. Only independent ref has no in depth coverage of the instrument. Merging to Liverpool Telescope or Siding Spring Observatory also possible. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since it has made at least one significant discovery, is used by astronomers from around the world and belongs to a notable network of telescopes used for educational purposes. It is part of what has been described as one of the world's leading observatories. I found and added two reliable sources which mention its use. It is still on the List of large optical telescopes. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Shiftchange. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: a 2m robotic instrument that is associated with a significant number of academic papers. This isn't just some back-yard telescope, and there is plenty of evidence of notability. Praemonitus (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It would be great if someone would put forward an argument based on WP:GNG which reqiures a subject has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Stuartyeates (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a list of sites containing coverage of the telescope: [1], [2], [3], [4], and nearly two hundred articles on Google Scholar containing "Faulkes Telescope South" showing the extent the telescope is used in academic papers. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sites have in depth coverage of this telescope as required by WP:GNG. They have data, video, animations and results derived from the telescope, none of which count for WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article should be in WP. It's a well known working scientific instrument. It is a telescope that is being used to search for exoplanet's and it's only a matter of time before it fully satisfies WP:GNG. The telescope has been in numerous citations in Google Scholar and several dozen books on Google Books. It's a keeper. scope_creep (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable telescope. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as it's a well-known educational project. I'm active in astronomy outreach, and Faulkes (North and South both) is a household name there; it would be weird for it to not have its own WP article. Markus Pössel (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a well known deletionist but this article gives me pause. The other editors have found some reliable sources and they are the kind you want, NASA, BBC, etc. Mkdw ^talk 06:57, 22 April 2013 (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.