Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar system basic

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. MBisanz ^talk 07:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar system basic

The article is a fork of Solar System, using the content from that article to create a Simple Wikipedia-style article. This will in all likelihood lead to serious complications in maintaining both articles in parallel. In addition, it needlessly duplicates what is already available on Simple; certain sections (such as "Dwarf planets") appear to have been copied from Simple based on similar formatting and text. (For reference, there were lengthy discussions last year at Talk:Solar System regarding the merits of simplifying the article in this way.) Ckatz^chat _spy 08:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a simple wikipedia article, which should be on, simple wikipedia, not here. If the name made any sense it'd be a redirect, but it doesn't, so a delete makes perfect sense. Shadowjams (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some topics do have a legitimate need for a 'simple' version, like General relativity and Introduction to general relativity. I don't see that Solar System is esoteric or complicated enough to be one. Since the disadvantages are obvious (the complications mentioned by Ckatz) and the name makes no sense as a redirect my vote is delete, unless HarryAlffa (who created the page) or someone else wants to explain exactly why they think this article needs two versions. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with the above comments, the article seems to be a needless repetition. HJ Mitchell (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The simple Wikipedia already has an article for the Solar System and like everyone else, I don't think this is complicated enough to warrant an introduction article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And I'd add that this article isn't simple enough to tell someone about the basics. Besides, do we really need a Cliff Notes version of every large article? Mandsford (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CFORK, and a Simple:Solar System already exists 76.66.196.218 (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the creator of the page HarryAlffa (talk · contribs) has a history of disruptive editing at Solar System, see user talk:HarryAlffa 76.66.196.218 (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rename article "Solar system executive summary/abstract/synopsis". This is really what I was trying to achieve, as the traditional lead section is to small to hold a useful summary, and the main article is overlong. Written as an executive summary it would not be a fork, nor a maintenance burden as that type of summary should not be concerned with details likely to be outdated soon. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a fairly compelling reason to make such an 'executive summary' given that Wikipedia doesn't normally do so. You say the traditional lede is too short, but the current lede of Solar system is a lot shorter given the size of the article than many ledes. Given that and the current length of Solar system basic, I'm not convinced that you can't achieve your aim better by just lengthening the lede. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Guidance on the lead says it should be no longer than 4 paragraphs. I did not say the lead is to short, I said it lacks the capacity to be useful for this particular article - hence the need for an executive summary. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is it about this particular article that you feel can't be adequately summarised by a lede, then? Olaf Davis (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can't do in 4 paragraphs what the Wikipedia:Lead section says it should do; "summary of the important aspects of the subject". I also feel that an executive summary (as Solar system basic is meant to be) would be an excellent idea, to overcome this limitation. I've also taken the opportunity to try to layout the structure of the document to reflect the structure of the solar system itself, which I think makes a better article. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what's special about this particular article that means it needs a longer than usual lede: all you've said is that it can't properly summarise it, but not why. If on the other hand you think this a common problem to many articles, perhaps the best course of action would be proposing a change to WP:LEDE or the idea of 'executive summary' articles at the Village pump. Such a change seems too significant (and given the above comments too far from uncontroversial) to enact without a wider search for consensus. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This content fork should be deleted. There is no compelling reason to have two articles about Solar System. This topic is not so hard to understand as, for instance, the General Relativity, to warrant creating the second (simplified) article. Ruslik (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Speedy Delete under CSD:A2. Simple Wikipedia may as well be another language for all intents and purposes. Matt (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a dangerous precedent to set. Deciding whether something is written in French is easy; deciding whether it is 'simple' or just a content fork seems ripe for controversy. There's onyl a day left anyway. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote was more based off the fact that a similar article already exists on Simple, not that the article belongs on Simple. Matt (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have pointed out, this is not the simple wikipedia. The intention is good, but I suggest the author to direct his effort towards improving Simple:Solar System. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2009 (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.