- 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 List of NGC objects. Sandstein 09:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
List of NGC stars
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of NGC stars ( | 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:LISTN. No sources appear to specifically document objects in the New General Catalogue that were later shown to be ordinary stars. The specific grouping of NGC stars is not described anywhere; the only sources are all-inclusive lists of all NGC objects that label these misidentified objects. (I should also add that List of NGC galaxies does not exist, probably for the same reason, but that is not an argument in itself.) In that sense, this list's entries duplicate those in List of NGC objects with no indication of separate notability for this classification; sources would only support noting these errors in the already-existing lists. ComplexRational ( talk) 16:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational ( talk) 16:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational ( talk) 16:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment @
ComplexRational: this was discussed at
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#NGC_stars where the agreement was to create the list (although I really need to fill in the values. I've just been lazy lately).
Sam-2727 (
talk) 17:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- My personal reasoning goes: Many NGC objects aren't notable/have enough information to merit a stand alone articles, but given the extreme interest of the objects to the astronomy community, lists are notable. This article mainly exists as a compliment of the main list: i.e. a subset of it (since the main list is split over eight pages with over 7,000 entries so the "erratum" in it are hard to find). LISTN aside, it's merely a subset of a larger list for readability purposes. I would support a change to "erratum" since not all are stars though.
Sam-2727 (
talk) 17:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @
Sam-2727: Thank you for the link. The question here is then, does LISTN supersede that discussion, your line of reasoning, and/or readability? The details mentioned in this list would be equally useful in the main lists of NGC objects (in which case, I'd be fine with a merge if this information is not already there), and I still don't see a strong enough reason as backed by reliable sources for a separate classification. Let's get a few more opinions.
ComplexRational (
talk) 17:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Passing LISTN can be sufficient but is not necessary. Why do you think it's a helpful approach here?
postdlf (
talk) 19:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Postdlf, (if I'm understanding you correctly) I'm citing LISTN because "List of NGC stars" is one of many plausible subcategorizations of "List of NGC objects" (already covers much of the same content), and it states that the specific categorization should be unique or notable. If the reason were to describe multiple NGC objects that are not independently notable, we already have that done (even if split across eight pages, but that's out of real necessity rather than alternative categorization), so something should be notable or particular to this categorization, as demonstrated by reliable sources, to justify keeping a separate list like this with the same content. The entire NGC is notable as a set, but that doesn't appear to be the case for this particular subset. What would you propose instead?
- Re one other point above, I should note that the existing lists are sortable, so one searching for NGC stars would not be hard-pressed to find them in there.
ComplexRational (
talk) 21:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- LISTN proves more useful if the list's classification is unusual or unexpected, such that we'd go out of our way to confirm that sources are using it. If it's an obvious or typical way of organizing information, then LISTN doesn't really contribute anything because we don't need a special argument to justify it (see instead
WP:LISTPURP). Here the argument for it seems to be that it groups one of the major types of objects together (and not a novel or overly specific type) that would otherwise be spread across eight separate lists. Would readers interested in this topic find a benefit in that? "They can search through the eight separate lists" is not a very good counterargument.
postdlf (
talk) 21:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- That's a fair point—this grouping is not unreasonable, though I still am not sure if having both parallel groupings is a good idea. We'd then have to decide where to redirect all the entries not notable for standalone articles, and draw a line somewhere so that we do not categorize NGC items under every conceivable scheme. And LISTN exists, in principle, to decide which standalone lists should exist.
ComplexRational (
talk) 21:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here are some sources to demonstrate general discussion of the list:
[1] (not a reliable source, but goes in depth to talk about errors in the catalogue).
[2] in the paragraph "The NGC is not perfect — far from it. It is awash with mistakes," and then mentions NGC classification errors.
here is a specific list referring to errata (you have to download the file to view the errata, but it mentions them on the webpage).
Sam-2727 (
talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the links, but these still are not sufficient to demonstrate notability of this collection. None of them focus specifically on stars; a one-sentence mention of errors or all-inclusive list identifying stars alongside galaxies, clusters, and nebulae are not significant coverage of this subset. And you mention that one of the sources is not reliable, so it should definitely not be used as the basis of an argument for discussion of this list and its notability (regardless of the fact that it is also all-inclusive). The fact that there are only passing mentions in exhaustive lists is part of what I am referring to in my original rationale. ComplexRational ( talk) 18:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here are some sources to demonstrate general discussion of the list:
[1] (not a reliable source, but goes in depth to talk about errors in the catalogue).
[2] in the paragraph "The NGC is not perfect — far from it. It is awash with mistakes," and then mentions NGC classification errors.
here is a specific list referring to errata (you have to download the file to view the errata, but it mentions them on the webpage).
Sam-2727 (
talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- That's a fair point—this grouping is not unreasonable, though I still am not sure if having both parallel groupings is a good idea. We'd then have to decide where to redirect all the entries not notable for standalone articles, and draw a line somewhere so that we do not categorize NGC items under every conceivable scheme. And LISTN exists, in principle, to decide which standalone lists should exist.
ComplexRational (
talk) 21:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- LISTN proves more useful if the list's classification is unusual or unexpected, such that we'd go out of our way to confirm that sources are using it. If it's an obvious or typical way of organizing information, then LISTN doesn't really contribute anything because we don't need a special argument to justify it (see instead
WP:LISTPURP). Here the argument for it seems to be that it groups one of the major types of objects together (and not a novel or overly specific type) that would otherwise be spread across eight separate lists. Would readers interested in this topic find a benefit in that? "They can search through the eight separate lists" is not a very good counterargument.
postdlf (
talk) 21:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Passing LISTN can be sufficient but is not necessary. Why do you think it's a helpful approach here?
postdlf (
talk) 19:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @
Sam-2727: Thank you for the link. The question here is then, does LISTN supersede that discussion, your line of reasoning, and/or readability? The details mentioned in this list would be equally useful in the main lists of NGC objects (in which case, I'd be fine with a merge if this information is not already there), and I still don't see a strong enough reason as backed by reliable sources for a separate classification. Let's get a few more opinions.
ComplexRational (
talk) 17:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- My personal reasoning goes: Many NGC objects aren't notable/have enough information to merit a stand alone articles, but given the extreme interest of the objects to the astronomy community, lists are notable. This article mainly exists as a compliment of the main list: i.e. a subset of it (since the main list is split over eight pages with over 7,000 entries so the "erratum" in it are hard to find). LISTN aside, it's merely a subset of a larger list for readability purposes. I would support a change to "erratum" since not all are stars though.
Sam-2727 (
talk) 17:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- ComplexRational, I see your point. I would support a merge now. Sam-2727 ( talk) 00:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The article reads like a directory. Lorstaking 04:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Merge with List of NGC objects. Praemonitus ( talk) 23:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Merge, per above discussion. Sam-2727 ( talk) 00:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- (Nom comment) Discussion leading me to lean more in favor of a merge with List of NGC objects (to consolidate everything in one place and because the subset isn't independently notable); the only question then is what to do with the redirect. ComplexRational ( talk) 01:37, 26 June 2020 (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.
- 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 List of NGC objects. Sandstein 09:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
List of NGC stars
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of NGC stars ( | 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:LISTN. No sources appear to specifically document objects in the New General Catalogue that were later shown to be ordinary stars. The specific grouping of NGC stars is not described anywhere; the only sources are all-inclusive lists of all NGC objects that label these misidentified objects. (I should also add that List of NGC galaxies does not exist, probably for the same reason, but that is not an argument in itself.) In that sense, this list's entries duplicate those in List of NGC objects with no indication of separate notability for this classification; sources would only support noting these errors in the already-existing lists. ComplexRational ( talk) 16:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational ( talk) 16:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational ( talk) 16:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment @
ComplexRational: this was discussed at
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#NGC_stars where the agreement was to create the list (although I really need to fill in the values. I've just been lazy lately).
Sam-2727 (
talk) 17:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- My personal reasoning goes: Many NGC objects aren't notable/have enough information to merit a stand alone articles, but given the extreme interest of the objects to the astronomy community, lists are notable. This article mainly exists as a compliment of the main list: i.e. a subset of it (since the main list is split over eight pages with over 7,000 entries so the "erratum" in it are hard to find). LISTN aside, it's merely a subset of a larger list for readability purposes. I would support a change to "erratum" since not all are stars though.
Sam-2727 (
talk) 17:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @
Sam-2727: Thank you for the link. The question here is then, does LISTN supersede that discussion, your line of reasoning, and/or readability? The details mentioned in this list would be equally useful in the main lists of NGC objects (in which case, I'd be fine with a merge if this information is not already there), and I still don't see a strong enough reason as backed by reliable sources for a separate classification. Let's get a few more opinions.
ComplexRational (
talk) 17:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Passing LISTN can be sufficient but is not necessary. Why do you think it's a helpful approach here?
postdlf (
talk) 19:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Postdlf, (if I'm understanding you correctly) I'm citing LISTN because "List of NGC stars" is one of many plausible subcategorizations of "List of NGC objects" (already covers much of the same content), and it states that the specific categorization should be unique or notable. If the reason were to describe multiple NGC objects that are not independently notable, we already have that done (even if split across eight pages, but that's out of real necessity rather than alternative categorization), so something should be notable or particular to this categorization, as demonstrated by reliable sources, to justify keeping a separate list like this with the same content. The entire NGC is notable as a set, but that doesn't appear to be the case for this particular subset. What would you propose instead?
- Re one other point above, I should note that the existing lists are sortable, so one searching for NGC stars would not be hard-pressed to find them in there.
ComplexRational (
talk) 21:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- LISTN proves more useful if the list's classification is unusual or unexpected, such that we'd go out of our way to confirm that sources are using it. If it's an obvious or typical way of organizing information, then LISTN doesn't really contribute anything because we don't need a special argument to justify it (see instead
WP:LISTPURP). Here the argument for it seems to be that it groups one of the major types of objects together (and not a novel or overly specific type) that would otherwise be spread across eight separate lists. Would readers interested in this topic find a benefit in that? "They can search through the eight separate lists" is not a very good counterargument.
postdlf (
talk) 21:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- That's a fair point—this grouping is not unreasonable, though I still am not sure if having both parallel groupings is a good idea. We'd then have to decide where to redirect all the entries not notable for standalone articles, and draw a line somewhere so that we do not categorize NGC items under every conceivable scheme. And LISTN exists, in principle, to decide which standalone lists should exist.
ComplexRational (
talk) 21:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here are some sources to demonstrate general discussion of the list:
[1] (not a reliable source, but goes in depth to talk about errors in the catalogue).
[2] in the paragraph "The NGC is not perfect — far from it. It is awash with mistakes," and then mentions NGC classification errors.
here is a specific list referring to errata (you have to download the file to view the errata, but it mentions them on the webpage).
Sam-2727 (
talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the links, but these still are not sufficient to demonstrate notability of this collection. None of them focus specifically on stars; a one-sentence mention of errors or all-inclusive list identifying stars alongside galaxies, clusters, and nebulae are not significant coverage of this subset. And you mention that one of the sources is not reliable, so it should definitely not be used as the basis of an argument for discussion of this list and its notability (regardless of the fact that it is also all-inclusive). The fact that there are only passing mentions in exhaustive lists is part of what I am referring to in my original rationale. ComplexRational ( talk) 18:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here are some sources to demonstrate general discussion of the list:
[1] (not a reliable source, but goes in depth to talk about errors in the catalogue).
[2] in the paragraph "The NGC is not perfect — far from it. It is awash with mistakes," and then mentions NGC classification errors.
here is a specific list referring to errata (you have to download the file to view the errata, but it mentions them on the webpage).
Sam-2727 (
talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- That's a fair point—this grouping is not unreasonable, though I still am not sure if having both parallel groupings is a good idea. We'd then have to decide where to redirect all the entries not notable for standalone articles, and draw a line somewhere so that we do not categorize NGC items under every conceivable scheme. And LISTN exists, in principle, to decide which standalone lists should exist.
ComplexRational (
talk) 21:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- LISTN proves more useful if the list's classification is unusual or unexpected, such that we'd go out of our way to confirm that sources are using it. If it's an obvious or typical way of organizing information, then LISTN doesn't really contribute anything because we don't need a special argument to justify it (see instead
WP:LISTPURP). Here the argument for it seems to be that it groups one of the major types of objects together (and not a novel or overly specific type) that would otherwise be spread across eight separate lists. Would readers interested in this topic find a benefit in that? "They can search through the eight separate lists" is not a very good counterargument.
postdlf (
talk) 21:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Passing LISTN can be sufficient but is not necessary. Why do you think it's a helpful approach here?
postdlf (
talk) 19:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @
Sam-2727: Thank you for the link. The question here is then, does LISTN supersede that discussion, your line of reasoning, and/or readability? The details mentioned in this list would be equally useful in the main lists of NGC objects (in which case, I'd be fine with a merge if this information is not already there), and I still don't see a strong enough reason as backed by reliable sources for a separate classification. Let's get a few more opinions.
ComplexRational (
talk) 17:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- My personal reasoning goes: Many NGC objects aren't notable/have enough information to merit a stand alone articles, but given the extreme interest of the objects to the astronomy community, lists are notable. This article mainly exists as a compliment of the main list: i.e. a subset of it (since the main list is split over eight pages with over 7,000 entries so the "erratum" in it are hard to find). LISTN aside, it's merely a subset of a larger list for readability purposes. I would support a change to "erratum" since not all are stars though.
Sam-2727 (
talk) 17:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- ComplexRational, I see your point. I would support a merge now. Sam-2727 ( talk) 00:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The article reads like a directory. Lorstaking 04:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Merge with List of NGC objects. Praemonitus ( talk) 23:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Merge, per above discussion. Sam-2727 ( talk) 00:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- (Nom comment) Discussion leading me to lean more in favor of a merge with List of NGC objects (to consolidate everything in one place and because the subset isn't independently notable); the only question then is what to do with the redirect. ComplexRational ( talk) 01:37, 26 June 2020 (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.