Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mining of Ceres

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 merge to asteroid mining. And redirect as appropriate. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mining of Ceres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article is a WP:SYNTHESIS of referenced facts about Ceres arranged in a way that serves as a discussion of the pros and cons of mining Ceres for minerals. It does not seem that this discussion has occurred in reliable secondary sources. Of all of the references, only one (the new book Asteroid Mining 101) is about asteroid mining at all, much less the mining of Ceres in particular. Unfortu3nately, I can't find the book in the libraries I have access to since it's so new, but of all the statements cited to it, none discuss Ceres as an asteroid to be mined, only an element of a proposed asteroid mining infrastructure. Cursory internet searches have also failed to turn up WP:RS discussions of Ceres mining distinct from asteroid mining in general. This recent article gives Ceres as an example, but the presentation it reports on was clearly about asteroid mining in general, not Ceres mining in particular. A2soup (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks like a fairly careful though not scholarly consideration of the aspects of mining. This would be an interesting article to read for kids and adults who are interested in astronomy. If it comprehensively fails WP:NOR it would be worth deleting but otherwise it seems to fit the purpose of WP quite well, providing information that is not easily accessible elsewhere.45sixtyone (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge. Provided that "Asteroid Mining 101" is a reliable source, I believe that the 'Strategic location' section should be renamed and merged into the main article, Ceres. The 'Physical conditions' section merely duplicates facts from Ceres, and the 'Potential difficulties' section contains unsourced analysis which might constitute original research. Moreover, 'Potential difficulties' might run afoul of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, as it is somewhat speculative. Astro4686 (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your analysis, but I think Asteroid mining would perhaps be a better place to merge to. A2soup (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agreed. Asteroid mining is a better destination for the merged material. Astro4686 (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. Although I think that a selective merge of a few phrases from sentences 2 and 3 in "Strategic location" to Asteroid mining would be appropriate, I would not oppose the deletion of this article. I don't think that a few phrases should spare this article from deletion, given the WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL concerns of Tigraan. Astro4686 (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteWeak delete. I see (1) information that is specific to Ceres (astronomy/geology trivia) and (2) generalities about asteroid mining, both of which are already covered in the specific articles to a reasonable degree of detail. The "strategic location" part is full of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL (note the "could", "would") - it is not unreasonable speculation, but it is still speculation. Tigraan (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg source from F&W below is a bit more than a passing mention and specifically discusses mining of Ceres. I still feel that is not enough (could be a press release in disguise from the scientists + a BB journalist pressed by a deadline) but one more of this with a different research group quoted would make it enough. Tigraan (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I found a couple more references: http://m.space.com/28640-living-on-ceres-asteroid-belt.html; http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-05/at-27-billion-mining-in-space-could-cost-less-than-a-gas-plant. This is slim pickings and I'm not sure we have enough sourcing to support an independent article. A selective merge to Ceres or Asteroid mining would seem ok. Note the prior debate ending keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Ceres. Fences&Windows 23:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge into asteroid mining and Ceres. --Fixuture (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Fixuture, merge into asteroid mining and Ceres as appropriate; subsequently redirect this article to Ceres. --Izno (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2016 (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.