Talk:Solar Physics Division

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge on the grounds that discussion is Stale and the target is not tagged. Klbrain (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seem appropriate to merge this division's information (if it can be referenced) into that of its parent.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more useful to keep them separate, if only because the SPD has a close association with several trade organizations (for example, every third year it meets with the AGU rather than the AAS). Some of the other AAS divisions (DPS, for example) also have their own page. zowie (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There isn't much content here, so I think that militates in favor of it being covered in the other article. That also avoids any concerns about notability, as the parent is more clearly notable. Also -- this article is troublesome, in that it has zero refs (though it has one, non-independent EL). If this isn't merged, all of its material might be properly challenged and -- failing our verifiability policy -- deleted, if it continues to lack inline citations. I would think the best course would be to merge any properly cited material, and/or create it in the parent article with proper refs. IMHO. I will take a look at the other divisions (and may have the same view about them), but your comment suggests (if I am reading it correctly) that some but not all have their own page. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I'm not sure why you're complaining about lack of references. There's a reference to the SPD official website, all the information in the article (which is pretty sparse) is there too. zowie (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"References" is a term of art on wikipedia. The article does have what we refer to as an "external link". But it lacks references. And the external link is not independent -- for purposes of demonstrating the notability of a subject, we look for substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Some relevant guidelines are WP:References, WP:V, and WP:Notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously considering that the main scientific organization for solar physics in the world is non-notable? With respect, I think you're being too zealous. zowie (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting it be deleted. I'm suggesting that any material that we wish to retain be sourced to independent reliable sources. Per wp:v. And -- given the size of this entry (3 sentences), that any properly referenced text be merged into the parent organization's article. Per wp:merge.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.