 | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2020 February 19. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. There appears to be a rough consensus that there is insufficient coverage to establish encyclopedic notability. Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- GJ 1151 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NASTRO, no claim to notability in the article. No scientific publications specific to this star, only entries in large listings. No popular coverage. Lithopsian ( talk) 10:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I am also nominating GJ 3378 for the same reasons:
Lithopsian ( talk) 10:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Notable, spectacularly so. They both satisfy GNG. GJ 1151 has significant coverage in 49 sources listed in the SIMBAD database. GJ 3378 has significant coverage 51 sources listed in that database. Further, both of these stars are less than 25 light years from the sun. That makes them truly exceptional. Further this nomination is out of process. Per ATD, PRESERVE and R, not to mention the wording of NASTRO itself, we cannot delete these pages because there is a plausible target for merger and redirection, namely the list of stars between 20 and 25 light years away. I would also like to know why I was not notified of this nomination. James500 ( talk) 12:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- So, you're proposing to redirect?
GJ 1151 is the last entry in the
list of star systems within 20–25 light years although the article itself gives a distance of 26.7 light years.
GJ 3378 doesn't appear to be in any of the close star lists although it claims a distance of 20 light years. I wouldn't oppose converting them to redirects, if no additional information can be found to support full articles.
Lithopsian (
talk)
15:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, I said (1) They satisfy GNG, which creates a presumption that they should have a standalone article. (2) Even if I was wrong about that (which is not admitted), they still could not be deleted because they would still be plausible redirects etc. James500 ( talk) 20:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC) GJ 3378 is in the list of stars between 20 and 25 light years away, where it is described as "G 192-13", one of its alternative names. James500 ( talk) 20:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- @
James500: Please add a bold "keep" or "redirect" or some such to the beginning of your !vote. You clearly want to keep this page, but not saying so creates the strong impression that you are trying to evade scrutiny.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
03:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. Stop making off topic comments. Stop putting words into my mouth that I have not said (you know perfectly well that notability does not guarantee a standalone article and "notable" does not mean "keep"). Stop asking me to do things that are not required by policy or guideline. Stop accusing me of motives that I do not have. Don't follow me around this project, and kindly read WP:HOUND.
James500 (
talk)
05:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's not an off-topic comment. You have !voted in hundreds of AFDs, including this one, while carefully avoiding doing so in the manner that everyone else on the project does, with the apparent intention of evading scrutiny. If you have some other motivation, you could elaborate on it when questioned. The fact that you would bring up WP:HOUND here (a policy with which I am very familiar, having been hounded by numerous editors in the past) just adds weight to the idea that your reason for never bolding your comments is to evade scrutiny. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. Stop making off topic comments. Stop putting words into my mouth that I have not said (you know perfectly well that notability does not guarantee a standalone article and "notable" does not mean "keep"). Stop asking me to do things that are not required by policy or guideline. Stop accusing me of motives that I do not have. Don't follow me around this project, and kindly read WP:HOUND.
James500 (
talk)
05:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- So, you're proposing to redirect?
GJ 1151 is the last entry in the
list of star systems within 20–25 light years although the article itself gives a distance of 26.7 light years.
GJ 3378 doesn't appear to be in any of the close star lists although it claims a distance of 20 light years. I wouldn't oppose converting them to redirects, if no additional information can be found to support full articles.
Lithopsian (
talk)
15:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic
|
|---|
|
- Weak keep. The star is very close to us at under 27 ly. It would be very surprising if there were not some kind of study of it. Spinning Spark 23:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yet there isn't. That's my whole point. None of the "49 sources" provide "non-trivial" coverage that I can see, meaning "significant commentary on the object" according to
WP:NASTCRIT. They are all just passing comments and lists in large tables or catalogues. If you can find "multiple, non-trivial published works" about either subject then I'd be happy to withdraw my deletion proposal. Better yet if they were in the article ;)
Lithopsian (
talk)
15:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is blindingly obvious that the sources do, between them, contain significant coverage within the meaning of GNG. For the avoidance of doubt, a topic that satisfies GNG does not have to satisfy any SNG. The lead section of WP:N makes that very clear. Even if that was not the case (which is denied) and even if the stars failed NASTRO (which is not admitted), we would still have to WP:IAR NASTRO, because we should not be subjecting exceptional and objectively important stars to any inflexible criteria that fails to take into account the fact that they are exceptional etc. James500 ( talk) 20:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yet there isn't. That's my whole point. None of the "49 sources" provide "non-trivial" coverage that I can see, meaning "significant commentary on the object" according to
WP:NASTCRIT. They are all just passing comments and lists in large tables or catalogues. If you can find "multiple, non-trivial published works" about either subject then I'd be happy to withdraw my deletion proposal. Better yet if they were in the article ;)
Lithopsian (
talk)
15:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: this object clearly fails WP:GNG. Per WP:NASTRO: "Unless the astronomical object is the primary, or one of the primary, targets of a study, then such a study should not be used to support the object's notability." Most of the sources in SIMBAD are of the catalogue nature and do not provide substantial coverage. I could not find substantial coverage in any scholarly paper. At best, you're going to find data points in tables. For example, Delfosse et al. (1997) has two table entries and no mention in the text. [1] Red dwarf stars are a dime a dozen; they don't all need coverage. Praemonitus ( talk) 21:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- (1) WP:GNG says in express words that "significant coverage" does not require that the topic be the primary subject of the source. If NASTRO says otherwise, there is a conflict between N and NASTRO, which NASTRO will lose, because N has much wider support from a much larger number of editors, whereas NASTRO is an obscure backwater with limited participation. (2) Stars of any kind within 25 light years are not a dime a dozen. There are very few of them both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the whole. The proximity of this star is what matters, not its size.
James500 (
talk)
21:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm pretty liberal in interpreting the meaning of "significant coverage". A couple of paragraphs will usually do it for me. This topic has zero such coverage; only data. It's non-notable. Praemonitus ( talk) 23:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- (1) WP:GNG says in express words that "significant coverage" does not require that the topic be the primary subject of the source. If NASTRO says otherwise, there is a conflict between N and NASTRO, which NASTRO will lose, because N has much wider support from a much larger number of editors, whereas NASTRO is an obscure backwater with limited participation. (2) Stars of any kind within 25 light years are not a dime a dozen. There are very few of them both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the whole. The proximity of this star is what matters, not its size.
James500 (
talk)
21:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- A notice of this AfD has been placed at the astronomy wikiproject. James500 ( talk) 21:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Repeating myself from previous articles with exactly the same arguments. Entries in catalogs are not notability. If there is something published that goes beyond numbers in catalog entries, it might be notable. As for it being close, if we have a list of all stars closer than n lightyears (where n > 27), it would deserve an entry in that list. But not an article based on nothing more than entries in a catalog. Tarl N. ( discuss) 23:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep, at least for the moment. Pending consensus among our astronomy editors that 1-2 sentence sub-stubs on these astronomical bodies that are theoretically notable but on which no one has managed to produce a proper article are acceptable in the long term, it seems arbitrary to delete this one in particular when most entries on List of star systems within 20–25 light-years seem to have their own articles that are as bad as, if not worse than, this one. Yes, this kinda OSE-ey, but it would look really silly if all the entries on the linked list still have crappy one-sentence articles that don't make claims to notability if we randomly deleted this one. The claims to notability and non-notability both rely on specialist knowledge that I don't possess, and it seems like several of the other commenters here do not either, at least based on their user pages; User:Lithopsian and User:Praemonitus both do at least imply on their user pages that they have an astronomy focus, and it's perhaps telling that both of them are saying delete, so if either could convince me that there's a good reason to keep, say, LHS 3003 or GJ 1286 but not this one I'll happily change my !vote, especially as this kinda touches on a problem that was addressed in a recent AN thread where topic-specialist editors were getting overruled at AFD by non-specialists claiming to have specialist knowledge while auto-!voting keep regardless of the arguments and evidence; I'd be a massive hypocrite if I didn't note that in this case the topic-specialists are all !voting the opposite way to me. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'll note
WP:OTHERSTUFF, but also that Praemonitus has flagged both those articles with notability tags. I'd agree that neither article has any good reason to exist.
Tarl N. (
discuss)
04:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know: I specifically said that my argument, which is based to some extent on WP:OSE, is weak, hence "weak keep". Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Re what Hijiri88 said: You can't make assumptions about what editors know based on what is on their user pages. "Astronomy editors" do not WP:OWN astronomy related articles and their !votes do not carry greater weight. Consensus does not take into account claims of specialist knowledge (see
WP:IAC).
James500 (
talk)
05:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Editors who are interested in and aware of astronomy are likely to edit astronomy articles. Editors who do not edit astronomy articles probably do not have any more interest in or awareness of the field than the average Wikipedia editor. It should also probably be noted that James500 suddenly joined WP:ASTRONOMY and added said membership to his user page in response to my above comment, [2] despite none of his top-edited articles or talk pages being in this topic area...? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'll note
WP:OTHERSTUFF, but also that Praemonitus has flagged both those articles with notability tags. I'd agree that neither article has any good reason to exist.
Tarl N. (
discuss)
04:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete both while several references exist, none that I could find offer significant commentary. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Completely agree with Lithopsian's comments on this. It is sufficient for an object like this to be included in a list of nearby stars unless there is more specific notability. Aldebarium ( talk) 00:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
| This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2020 February 19. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. There appears to be a rough consensus that there is insufficient coverage to establish encyclopedic notability. Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- GJ 1151 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NASTRO, no claim to notability in the article. No scientific publications specific to this star, only entries in large listings. No popular coverage. Lithopsian ( talk) 10:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I am also nominating GJ 3378 for the same reasons:
Lithopsian ( talk) 10:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Notable, spectacularly so. They both satisfy GNG. GJ 1151 has significant coverage in 49 sources listed in the SIMBAD database. GJ 3378 has significant coverage 51 sources listed in that database. Further, both of these stars are less than 25 light years from the sun. That makes them truly exceptional. Further this nomination is out of process. Per ATD, PRESERVE and R, not to mention the wording of NASTRO itself, we cannot delete these pages because there is a plausible target for merger and redirection, namely the list of stars between 20 and 25 light years away. I would also like to know why I was not notified of this nomination. James500 ( talk) 12:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- So, you're proposing to redirect?
GJ 1151 is the last entry in the
list of star systems within 20–25 light years although the article itself gives a distance of 26.7 light years.
GJ 3378 doesn't appear to be in any of the close star lists although it claims a distance of 20 light years. I wouldn't oppose converting them to redirects, if no additional information can be found to support full articles.
Lithopsian (
talk)
15:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, I said (1) They satisfy GNG, which creates a presumption that they should have a standalone article. (2) Even if I was wrong about that (which is not admitted), they still could not be deleted because they would still be plausible redirects etc. James500 ( talk) 20:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC) GJ 3378 is in the list of stars between 20 and 25 light years away, where it is described as "G 192-13", one of its alternative names. James500 ( talk) 20:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- @
James500: Please add a bold "keep" or "redirect" or some such to the beginning of your !vote. You clearly want to keep this page, but not saying so creates the strong impression that you are trying to evade scrutiny.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
03:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. Stop making off topic comments. Stop putting words into my mouth that I have not said (you know perfectly well that notability does not guarantee a standalone article and "notable" does not mean "keep"). Stop asking me to do things that are not required by policy or guideline. Stop accusing me of motives that I do not have. Don't follow me around this project, and kindly read WP:HOUND.
James500 (
talk)
05:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's not an off-topic comment. You have !voted in hundreds of AFDs, including this one, while carefully avoiding doing so in the manner that everyone else on the project does, with the apparent intention of evading scrutiny. If you have some other motivation, you could elaborate on it when questioned. The fact that you would bring up WP:HOUND here (a policy with which I am very familiar, having been hounded by numerous editors in the past) just adds weight to the idea that your reason for never bolding your comments is to evade scrutiny. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. Stop making off topic comments. Stop putting words into my mouth that I have not said (you know perfectly well that notability does not guarantee a standalone article and "notable" does not mean "keep"). Stop asking me to do things that are not required by policy or guideline. Stop accusing me of motives that I do not have. Don't follow me around this project, and kindly read WP:HOUND.
James500 (
talk)
05:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- So, you're proposing to redirect?
GJ 1151 is the last entry in the
list of star systems within 20–25 light years although the article itself gives a distance of 26.7 light years.
GJ 3378 doesn't appear to be in any of the close star lists although it claims a distance of 20 light years. I wouldn't oppose converting them to redirects, if no additional information can be found to support full articles.
Lithopsian (
talk)
15:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic
|
|---|
|
- Weak keep. The star is very close to us at under 27 ly. It would be very surprising if there were not some kind of study of it. Spinning Spark 23:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yet there isn't. That's my whole point. None of the "49 sources" provide "non-trivial" coverage that I can see, meaning "significant commentary on the object" according to
WP:NASTCRIT. They are all just passing comments and lists in large tables or catalogues. If you can find "multiple, non-trivial published works" about either subject then I'd be happy to withdraw my deletion proposal. Better yet if they were in the article ;)
Lithopsian (
talk)
15:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is blindingly obvious that the sources do, between them, contain significant coverage within the meaning of GNG. For the avoidance of doubt, a topic that satisfies GNG does not have to satisfy any SNG. The lead section of WP:N makes that very clear. Even if that was not the case (which is denied) and even if the stars failed NASTRO (which is not admitted), we would still have to WP:IAR NASTRO, because we should not be subjecting exceptional and objectively important stars to any inflexible criteria that fails to take into account the fact that they are exceptional etc. James500 ( talk) 20:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yet there isn't. That's my whole point. None of the "49 sources" provide "non-trivial" coverage that I can see, meaning "significant commentary on the object" according to
WP:NASTCRIT. They are all just passing comments and lists in large tables or catalogues. If you can find "multiple, non-trivial published works" about either subject then I'd be happy to withdraw my deletion proposal. Better yet if they were in the article ;)
Lithopsian (
talk)
15:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: this object clearly fails WP:GNG. Per WP:NASTRO: "Unless the astronomical object is the primary, or one of the primary, targets of a study, then such a study should not be used to support the object's notability." Most of the sources in SIMBAD are of the catalogue nature and do not provide substantial coverage. I could not find substantial coverage in any scholarly paper. At best, you're going to find data points in tables. For example, Delfosse et al. (1997) has two table entries and no mention in the text. [1] Red dwarf stars are a dime a dozen; they don't all need coverage. Praemonitus ( talk) 21:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- (1) WP:GNG says in express words that "significant coverage" does not require that the topic be the primary subject of the source. If NASTRO says otherwise, there is a conflict between N and NASTRO, which NASTRO will lose, because N has much wider support from a much larger number of editors, whereas NASTRO is an obscure backwater with limited participation. (2) Stars of any kind within 25 light years are not a dime a dozen. There are very few of them both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the whole. The proximity of this star is what matters, not its size.
James500 (
talk)
21:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm pretty liberal in interpreting the meaning of "significant coverage". A couple of paragraphs will usually do it for me. This topic has zero such coverage; only data. It's non-notable. Praemonitus ( talk) 23:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- (1) WP:GNG says in express words that "significant coverage" does not require that the topic be the primary subject of the source. If NASTRO says otherwise, there is a conflict between N and NASTRO, which NASTRO will lose, because N has much wider support from a much larger number of editors, whereas NASTRO is an obscure backwater with limited participation. (2) Stars of any kind within 25 light years are not a dime a dozen. There are very few of them both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the whole. The proximity of this star is what matters, not its size.
James500 (
talk)
21:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- A notice of this AfD has been placed at the astronomy wikiproject. James500 ( talk) 21:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Repeating myself from previous articles with exactly the same arguments. Entries in catalogs are not notability. If there is something published that goes beyond numbers in catalog entries, it might be notable. As for it being close, if we have a list of all stars closer than n lightyears (where n > 27), it would deserve an entry in that list. But not an article based on nothing more than entries in a catalog. Tarl N. ( discuss) 23:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep, at least for the moment. Pending consensus among our astronomy editors that 1-2 sentence sub-stubs on these astronomical bodies that are theoretically notable but on which no one has managed to produce a proper article are acceptable in the long term, it seems arbitrary to delete this one in particular when most entries on List of star systems within 20–25 light-years seem to have their own articles that are as bad as, if not worse than, this one. Yes, this kinda OSE-ey, but it would look really silly if all the entries on the linked list still have crappy one-sentence articles that don't make claims to notability if we randomly deleted this one. The claims to notability and non-notability both rely on specialist knowledge that I don't possess, and it seems like several of the other commenters here do not either, at least based on their user pages; User:Lithopsian and User:Praemonitus both do at least imply on their user pages that they have an astronomy focus, and it's perhaps telling that both of them are saying delete, so if either could convince me that there's a good reason to keep, say, LHS 3003 or GJ 1286 but not this one I'll happily change my !vote, especially as this kinda touches on a problem that was addressed in a recent AN thread where topic-specialist editors were getting overruled at AFD by non-specialists claiming to have specialist knowledge while auto-!voting keep regardless of the arguments and evidence; I'd be a massive hypocrite if I didn't note that in this case the topic-specialists are all !voting the opposite way to me. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'll note
WP:OTHERSTUFF, but also that Praemonitus has flagged both those articles with notability tags. I'd agree that neither article has any good reason to exist.
Tarl N. (
discuss)
04:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know: I specifically said that my argument, which is based to some extent on WP:OSE, is weak, hence "weak keep". Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Re what Hijiri88 said: You can't make assumptions about what editors know based on what is on their user pages. "Astronomy editors" do not WP:OWN astronomy related articles and their !votes do not carry greater weight. Consensus does not take into account claims of specialist knowledge (see
WP:IAC).
James500 (
talk)
05:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Editors who are interested in and aware of astronomy are likely to edit astronomy articles. Editors who do not edit astronomy articles probably do not have any more interest in or awareness of the field than the average Wikipedia editor. It should also probably be noted that James500 suddenly joined WP:ASTRONOMY and added said membership to his user page in response to my above comment, [2] despite none of his top-edited articles or talk pages being in this topic area...? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'll note
WP:OTHERSTUFF, but also that Praemonitus has flagged both those articles with notability tags. I'd agree that neither article has any good reason to exist.
Tarl N. (
discuss)
04:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete both while several references exist, none that I could find offer significant commentary. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Completely agree with Lithopsian's comments on this. It is sufficient for an object like this to be included in a list of nearby stars unless there is more specific notability. Aldebarium ( talk) 00:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.