Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Juno, Moon, Ceres, Pallas, Vesta and Astronomical events

Juno, Moon, Ceres, Pallas, Vesta and Astronomical events
These have been kicking around the list of speedy delete candidates for some time. Well... except for the Astronomical events Wikibook which I'll get to in a moment. All of these pages have very similar content, and goes to the issue of what really is a Wikibook. Most of this content was transwikied to Wikisource, however there is now a VfD on Wikisource as well for this same content, begging the question about where this sort of content ought to belong. There is no copyright question for this content as it is just factual data in a table, and it does have utility for people interested in astronomical research. The question really is where does this stuff belong and how should it be organized?

I've added the Astronomical Events Wikibook to this discussion because it really is more of the same sort of thing, and we might as well decide where to put all of this sort of content. As it, this all violates WB:NP, but that is the least of the problems at the moment. If I see a comment to move this to Wikicities I think I'll have a stroke, but it may get to that as well. I would prefer to keep this as Wikimedia content somewhere. Any other thoughts? A merge of all this content into one big Wikibook may be a possibility, or affirming that it belongs on Wikisource. --Rob Horning 18:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The consensus at Wikisource was to keep this material. But I can imagine it would be much more useful as Wikibooks were the tables could be kept together.  As it at WS they are randomly stashed in with the mathmetical data.  Most all of our texts are organized by Author, so the data is kind of orphaned.--69.148.9.81 18:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wikisource whatever hasn't alredy been done. My first thought was that this doesn't really belong on Wikisource, but then I actually read s:Wikisource:What is Wikisource? (imagine that!) and decided it did belong there after all.  It is perhaps better there than here because it would usefully be linked from both Wikipedia and Wikibooks and because such data, although a useful reference, does not constitute a text book.  Although I prefer to avoid having a stroke, I at least agree with Rob Horning that Wikicites should not Not NOT be the final resting place for this data. :-)  The original issue behind its nomination for [speedy] deletion was its inappropriateness for the Astronomy book.  At least that was the thought of the fellow who has been cleaning up Astronomy&mdash;and I am loathe to argue with the industrious efforts of a relative newbie performing yeoman service in taking on such a large and honorable project.  It certainly does not follow from his objection to keeping the data as part of the Astronomy book that it is inappropriate for any Wikibook.  But my current best guess is that Wikisource is the proper location.  --JMRyan 20:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into the Astronomy wikibook. These pages, while they wouldn't help the main narrative of the book, would fit neatly into an appendix or an errata section, possibly with some short explanation. If Astronomy doesn't want it in this respect, then delete it. This material certainly doesn't belong on wikibooks as is, and if other wiki's don't want it, then it shold dissapear forever. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 20:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wikisource. I agree that these pages could form the basis for an Astronomical Almanac type of book, but I'm really loath to suggest forking these tables in the absence of someone willing to work on a project like that. I would also warn Wikibookians that astronomers generally don't use books like The Astronomical Almanac any longer, since computers will calculate most of the material in them quickly and easily. I absolutely do not consider them appropriate for the Astronomy Wikibook, even as an appendix. These data are much too obscure for that. Based on s:Wikisource:What is Wikisource?, this material does seem to qualify to reside there. Given that these pages are pure data tables, that seems like the most appropriate place for them. --Brian Brondel 21:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wikisource and delete. Four of these modules/articles went to Wikisource "proposed deletions" (their VFD) at Wikisource:Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2006/01: the result was "keep". --Kernigh 04:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Juno is already transwikied. I have not checked the other five modules yet, if they exist at Wikisource and have everything that Wikibooks has. --Kernigh 04:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

All six modules are transwikied and deleted. I did not transwiki them; there were already duplicate pages at Wikisource, and some of them were improved from the ones at Wikibooks. Note that these six modules were never properly linked from Wikibooks, except for "Astronomical events", which had one link from Astronomy. At Wikisource, the astronomical data is now forming an island, but its linked to itself, and there are links between the data and the Astronomy book. (The "Data" section at Main Page contains only a link for election data.) --Kernigh 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)