Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celestial bodies by galactic coordinate system

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. postdlf (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of celestial bodies by galactic coordinate system[edit]

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

This list is impossible to make comprehensive due to the vast number of celestial objects known (such a comprehensive list would be longer than all other Wikipedia articles combined, I'd guess). Aside from that, such information is better actually included in the articles themselves than in this list. Remember here, Wikipedia is not a directory. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nom is right, this is a hopelessly enormous (dare I say astronomic) list specification which will certainly never be completed, nor should it be included per WP:NOTDIR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 19:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, Wikipedia is not a directory. This will become an unmaintainable list. These bits of information should be added to the articles about the celestial bodies themselves. Trysha ^(talk) 19:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly agreed. However, let's now make a discussion about how we will put galactic coordinates of objects in their infoboxes. That would be a huge discussion. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if delete If the consensus is to delete, I'd like to ask to have this moved to my userspace. It took hours to compile that information and I'd hate to see it deleted. —CodeHydro 21:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see any problems with that. If the closing admin elects not to userfy for whatever reason, I'd be happy to do it for you. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wanted to note that, if I remember correctly, this list nearly went to AfD in the past per WP:NOT, but the would-be nominee backed down after I added to the intro paragraph that the list should be limited to objects "that have their own article on Wikipedia" and purged it of objects that didn't have an article. Yes, WP is not an indiscriminate directory, but this article does discriminate and offers stargazers a means to find notable objects in a particular direction in the sky. Otherwise it'd be a needle in a haystack searching through a list of nebulas to find out the name of a neighboring object. —CodeHydro 22:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Codehydro. Well, for me it indeed hurts to see your own hard work being deleted, but you must realize some things.

1. The list is limited — You must know that there are billions of celestial objects known. Trying to fit them in a single list would probably took years of improvment, if not impossible, to compile. Such a list is so huge that it would never be maintained, as per StringTheory11. If you think it is limited only for notable celestial objects, just take the 7,000 naked-eye stars.
2. Wikipedia has 30,000 astronomical articles — Tied with #1, Wikipedia is a very large website. It would be practically challenging to include celestial objects in an assorted list.
3 The list is directorial (p.s. correct me if I'm wrong) see WP:NOT.

Now, if what you only want is to indicate the galactic coordinates of celestial objects, I suggest if we put the coordinates to the articles themselves. I mean, put it in their infoboxes so readers who use galactic coordinates may get info about them.

Just post below if you want to say something. SkyFlubbler (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, if the community would rather have it the infoboxes then the closing admin may just bump the article into my userspace and I'll find the time to add a new parameter into the infobox template and transfer the info to their respective articles sometime after the holidays. —CodeHydro 14:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a good idea to me. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy as requested. That is an indiscriminate list of coordinates, which in principle would cover every one of the > a billion astronomical objects currently known (and many more as yet undiscovered). It also duplicates information which is freely available elsewhere e.g. on SIMBAD. If someone wants to add those coordinates to the articles on each of the objects, I would have no objection. But a standalone list is totally contrary to WP:NOT. Modest Genius ^talk 15:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's basically an indiscriminate list, destined to be abandoned and alone amongst the myriad other unmaintainable lists. Let it go with its dignity intact. ;-) Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2014 (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.