Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benmore Peak Observatory 2

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

Benmore Peak Observatory

This article was incorrectly nominated for deletion November 2004 Talk:Benmore Peak Observatory/delete. It has been repeatedly sniped at by some editors who say that it is a non-notable amateur astronomy observatory. I have no opinion about it and am simply nominating it to settle the matter, one way or the other. Willmcw July 3, 2005 09:44 (UTC)

• Delete: Vote changed, in light of more recent research. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)
• Delete: New Zealand's professional observatories (Mt. John and Stardome) already have Wiki entries. This one is just a playhouse for wannabes and dreamers. Why not include entries for everyone with a little telescope? We have enough trouble getting funding here as it is without clowns and charlatans diluting the available resources. Delete! (user:210.55.81.1)
  • Though this is the first edit made under this IP, I believe that this editor has previously made other contributions of a similar nature, and so their opinion should be given more weight than for a first time user. -Willmcw July 3, 2005 10:47 (UTC)
• Delete: Website empty, nothing on other websites and if you look way back in the article history someone claiming to be from the site edits and tries to get rid of the article. It sounds like a small setup with a person or two and their friends, not run by a major organisation or even a public telescope others can rent. Unless somebody has information to the contary. SimonLyall 3 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)
• Delete. I've had this on my watchlist for a while, and have seen nothing to indicate it's anything more than someone's personal setup; someone who'd rather not have an article. According to its website, it may no longer be available to the public, and there doesn't seem to be an authoratative third-party source to report its status (many, if not most, hits are Wikipedia mirrors). Personal weather stations are a dime-a-dozen nowadays[1], and that's all this seems to be. Niteowlneils 3 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)
• Delete since notability not established (nor establishable). -Splash July 3, 2005 14:57 (UTC)
• Delete nn, nothing in a goggle search to indicate otherwise. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)
• Delete. Sadly, I'd have to agree with this. Grutness...wha? 4 July 2005 01:50 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: The people who run this mickey mouse outfit are incompetent and there's not an astronomy or physics degree to be seen among them. They are bad even by the standards of amateur astronomers. (user:222.45.22.15)
  • There's no need for obnoxious personal attack concerning this observatory. Disregarding statements by anon. user, however, this page has nothing detailing their instruments, the types of observations they make, or any discoveries of note. The web site gives no details So, unfortunately, I vote to delete. — RJH 4 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)
• Delete: I have no respect for the anonymous user who's been creating editorial havoc on this page in the past few days, and has already voted above to delete this article twice (both IP's point to dialup.xtra.co.nz). This is a person with a very polar non-negotiable opinion that the only thing that matters in any astronomy at all is professional research by people with whom that particular person is affiliated. The same anonymous user has been trolling and vandalising a variety of NZ-related astronomy pages in the past few days, wiping some and putting glowing-sounding factual errors on others, in most cases hypocritically. All of that said, this particular article doesn't seem to be wanted by anyone, so I'll reluctantly support its deletion. Izogi 5 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
• Please delete this entry: As one of the "incompetent" people from the "mickey mouse outfit" known as Benmore Peak Observatory, I am all in favor of the removal of this entry from Wikipedia. It has been nothing but a source of trouble ever since a thoughful visitor created it on our behalf. People such as this "anonymous" assailent (Gee, can't imagine who that could be...) have been causing us a huge amount of grief (we've even had to switch hosts to end the DDoS attacks) and we've voted to minimize BPO's Internet presence, and end public access to the physical site for the time-being. Sorry, I don't know how to auto-generate my IP (it's an IHUG DSL account), so I'll sign off as contact AT observatory DOT co DOT nz. (vote by 203.173.148.113)
  • Comment: It may have been a typo, but note that the .co.nz address is not Benmore Peak. The Benmore Peak contact address (based on DNS lookup registration details) is contact AT observatory DOT org DOT nz. Izogi 7 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)
    • Comment: Oops, my bad. Should have been DOT org. Apologies for the typo. Shaun, BPO.
• Do Not Delete: Nothing here indicates that anyone is able or willing to offer the slightest bit of actual, real, verifiable information on this observatory--who does the thing belong to anyway? There is evidently some strange personal crusade going on and my guess is that others have simply logged on to vent. By the way, my IP is xtra.co.nz which along with IHUG is as common as fleas on a yard dog here in NZ. Can we get some real information here? So what if the observatory and the website is staff only--hell, Hubble is staff only. BP is listed here and there as an observatory (just ran into another one at absoluteastronomy.com). malangthon
  • Edit actually by anon IP 210.54.78.149. If you are really Malangthon, please log in before voting. --Etacar11 7 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)
  • Absoluteastronomy.com uses material from Wikipedia. The article on BPO there is simply a copy of our own. At the bottom it says, "The source of this article is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." [2] -Willmcw July 7, 2005 23:16 (UTC)
  • Not actually by anon. Which leads me to wonder why on earth is it possible to edit without logging in? In the meantime, what shall we do, sue absoluteastronomy.com? "Red Wingleader to Luke Skywalker, 'Stay on Topic.' "malangthon
• Delete: Vote changed. I picked up the phone--they are listed. I spoken to one of the group (who has also spoke to one of the Wikipedia people before). The Benmore Peak group prefer to be left alone--astronomy is the point of it all and they prefer this nonsense be dropped if it means being dropped from Wikipedia. They are dealing with people outside their group who have problems being reasonable and would just as soon be left alone. Software indicates I am still logged on. malangthon
• Delete: I'm the manager of BPO. The submitter has made a very good point; BPO is no more notable than any other mostly amateur-run observatory, and there's no real reason why we should have a Wiki entry. The article was not even created by us. Remove it, we have no objection at all. Gary, BPO Manager. 203.173.148.113

First VfD listing, November 2004

Benmore Peak Observatory was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was INVALID LISTING - no valid reason was given for deletion - Graham ☺ | Talk 19:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BPO is merely another little amateur observatory. The Wiki entry wasn't even created by us! We have things to build on a mountaintop and no time at all for this idiocy, so I say delete the entry speedily please. Give us some peace! :-( 222.152.120.161 20:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

it does not matter at all that this entry was created by you or by anyone. Anyone can create an entry, you, I or anyone. And I see nothing offending, nor being worth of qualifying of being idiotic in the current entry. I do not see how this entry can be problematic. I actually see no valid reason for it to be deleted. What is the problem really ? SweetLittleFluffyThing 12:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not see this entry being left in peace now or in the near future. Since it has become a major first-referrer for BPO (check Google), it's better removed. 222.152.120.161 21:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

!this is one of the stupidest things i have ever witnessed on wiki! take it somewhere else!

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.