RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Hubble's law

Hubble's law | Result: Redirected to Big_Bang#Pillar_1:_The_Universe_is_expanding

Hubble's law (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Stub with questionable missionality; what is there to debunk? —Kazitor 06:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

   Three lines? Pathetic! Spud (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

2. Not sure what the point of this is, beyond mistaking RW for a science encyclopedia. Is it even worth a redirect? 79.68.238.208 (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)
3. Worthless, not even worth a redirect. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Oh come on. It's a relevant nib of scientific theory for debunking creationism. We're gonna link it, and redirecting to big bang doesn't actually answer anything. Have a see also wikipedia, but mention that it debunks creationists. This ain't hard. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   After existing for almost a decade it's been linked in two or three articles (plus some random links from the science template). Something tells me the wiki can do without this little tidbit. Unless someone wants to expand this into something worthwhile... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   That's literally 2-3 places on the wiki someone might be reading and go "what's that?" Stubs aren't illegal. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   And for those (literally) 2-3 places a note or Wikipedia-link can readily answer that question, instead of coaxing people to click a link to this almost-completely-phantom-limb of a page. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   I have to agree with Bon. While stubs aren't illegal or inherently bad, it's best we minimize them when we get the opportunity. The bigger problem is that the article is only tangentially missional, which hardly justifies its existence, and you can make the argument on the hypothetical reader for practically any article like this one. This is why we have Wikipedia links. Besides, the other option, redirecting this page to possibly an anchor to a subsection somewhere, isn't bad either and also accomplishes that goal of guiding readers to more information. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   I guess I see your point. It's just when I'm holding hedge clippers I don't go "that perfectly healthy, not-out-place leaf back there is tiny and hasn't grown for 10 years, time to cut it off". Is that a contrived metaphor? Dunno. Am I babbling, definitely. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   I wouldn't cut off the tiny leaf either, but then tiny leaves are pretty (and alive!), while a white screen with a huge template and a tiny inkling of text is not, in my opinion. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   Well, just think of it like this, it's a tiny leaf that's languishing, and we're snipping it off and attaching it to a healthier plant. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Could reasonably be redirected to Big Bang, which mentions the law and has more context. Not much point in keeping. --Annanoon (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
2. I second this motion. Nerd (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
3. A redirect seems in order. Count Bezukhov (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Yes, redirect. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Merge and redirect. Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
6. Can somebody who understands this science stuff just go ahead and merge it already? Spud (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure any of it merits merging, it just needs a redirect. --Annanoon (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Spud Done! Nerd (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)