Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WISEPC J222623.05+044003.9

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 and REDIRECT to List of brown dwarfs. Spinning Spark 09:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WISEPC J222623.05+044003.9

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

I think these articles lack regarding Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) for having little information apart from physical parameters and discovery data and fail to meet the general notability guideline. They are very similar to the brown dwarfs discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WISEPC J234841.10-102844.4, please check that out. Hekerui (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as explained above:

Click "show" to see list of articles

Delete as lacking significant in depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NASTRO and current consensus for similar articles. These articles are near duplicates of each other, except for the actually stellar data, which best remains in an astronomy database. (As a side note, I would recommend that we put all of the above listings in a collapsible box, for the sake of brevity.) - Mr X 00:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In December 2012 and January 2013, the requirement for merging the content was discussed in depth at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_23#WISE_object_notability and Talk:WISEPC_J150649.97+702736.0#Notability. The consensus was to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 23#Megamerge the content into a list article. This is a borderline case of FORUM SHOPPING and should be decided by consensus with proper discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. This is not the place to decide to mass delete Category:WISE objects. -- Kheider (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to provide policy-based support for your contention that "This is not the place to decide to mass delete Category:WISE objects" ? Are you claiming that AfD does not apply to these articles for some reason? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NASTRO#Special cases states, "When in doubt, bring the issue to WikiProject Astronomical objects for discussion." It does not say to go forum shopping when you do not want to compromise. -- Kheider (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the recent deletion discussion where this archived discussion came up and the articles were deleted anyway. What does that tell us? That your

is a not an argument. It's insulting to have every action I take accompanied with a big bad warning label when I'm the only one who bothered to actually put in the work to deal with a deluge of directory entries disguised as articles. And if you mark articles with asterisks, explain what that means or remove them. Hekerui (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's insulting that you have gone forum shopping to avoid the workload of merging the content to a list! All of your "supports" for deletion came before I posted on your Afds. -- Kheider (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is anything to merge, the articles are all the same except for numbers that can be found in list in the papers, and this is why I requested deletion. Hekerui (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE to a list as per consensus established in January. -- Kheider (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I don't see the consensus that you're referring to. The discussion was more than two months ago. Has a list article been created yet? I'm not opposed to some sort of merge, if there is in fact consensus to do so at WikiProject Astronomical objects. - Mr X 02:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question why are some of these WISE, some WISEPC and some WISEPA? If these were all discovered by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer would they be potentially merged into List of objects discovered by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, List of Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer objects, List of WISE objects, or something else entirely? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to relevant lists. WP:NASTRO does apply here, but it doesn't say to straight-up delete these. They should be re-directed to the relevant list-of article. The onus is on interested editors to populate the list with meaningful data, but deletion is the last resort, which I don't think is called-for yet. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to nominate as to "the relevant list-of article" ? or would one need to be built? Stuartyeates (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been built: List of brown dwarfs - even has a WISE section. Perhaps not the most elegant solution, but a place to redirect exists. More work is being spent on this AfD than would take to populate this list with info from the above WISE objects. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of brown dwarfs, per WP:NASTRO and previous discussion on WT:ASTRO. These do not meet the notability criteria of WP:NASTRO (at least the half dozen I checked don't, I'm willing to take the others on good faith), as they have not received significant individual study. A list entry (with redirects) is the correct place for them. Modest Genius ^talk 12:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline says to merge but.... I'm not sure we should be keeping random lists of non-notable objects out there. Wikipedia is not SDSS, MPC, or WISE. Why should wiki have a database when more complete databases exist elsewhere? Wouldn't it make more sense to have lists of notable objects with an external link to the most relevant database at the bottom? WP:LSC seems to suggest this course of action and directly contradicts what we came up with per WP:NASTRO. So I'm actually more of a mind to delete per WP:LSC. One could probably make a case that WP:NASTRO might be amended as to inclusion criteria on a list (i.e. I can see things like List of nearest terrestrial exoplanets having otherwise non-notable objects, but not List of galaxies or List of brown dwarfs). Sailsbystars (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a list. I also think this nomination is rather reckless. The nominators has not provided any evidence that they are not, in fact, notable. They has not searched relevant publications databases and has not reviewed the relevant literature. The main reason behind this nominations seems to be to delete as many articles as possible without regard for what is good for Wikipedia. Ruslik_Zero 17:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All there is on these brown dwarfs are the physical parameters and the dates of discovery. Now if you think these may be individually notable, why would you !vote to merge them? Hekerui (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: are these objects best classified as WISE objects or as brown dwarfs? Is it correct to thing that WISE refers to the apparatus of discovery rather than an intrinsic property of the object? Wouldn't it be best to organise things by intrinsic properties? And if we don't know enough of their intrinsic properties to organise them, I'm not sure that they even deserve a place on a list. Confirming the distance by trigonometric parallax seems like a useful benchmark, since then we know the position of the object with a reasonable accuracy. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Objects such as stars (or brown dwarfs in this case) are best listed by Right ascension since that will not change. All of these objects are brown dwarfs discovered by the WISE spacecraft. And yes, improved estimates (whether based on spectrum or parallax) can have modest changes to the estimated distances. -- Kheider (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After many hours of work, I have added all these WISE brown dwarfs (and most WISE brown dwarfs) to List of brown dwarfs in a usable and sortable table. I still think brown dwarfs less than 30 light-years from the Sun should NOT be re-directed. Some of the brown dwarfs are notable for other reasons. -- Kheider (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your hard work. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2013 (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.