Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/56 Aquilae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Physchim62 15:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 56 Aquilae

Nom&vote delete. What is at all notable about THIS star? There are, to quote Carl Sagan, BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of stars. That's more than even people on the planet, yet every person does not warrant an encyclopedia article. Daniel Lotspeich 04:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Perhaps deletion not the right course, but what really is it about this star that warrants its place here. I can easily peak out my window now and there are stars. So what?--Daniel Lotspeich 04:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Change my vote to keep. I'll do some research on details of the star. --Daniel Lotspeich 04:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, I'm a newbie and just changed my username from Daniel Lotspeich to Gaff. I want to be upfront about that to avoid any confusion or accusations of sockpuppetry.--Gaff talk 23:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all stars that can be seen by peeking out of the window. (apparent magnitude <=6). Kappa 04:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is linked to from a table entitled "Notable and named stars". In addition, 56 Aquilae is brighter than two planet-bearing stars within Aquila, which both have articles. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 04:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What if it was a smaller star, like any number of the smaller stars that you posted last night Merovingian? I think that all of those ought to remain here, but if others disagree, perhaps we need to establish guidelines for star notability. Simply, I think that all known stars are notable. As new stars are discovered (even if only knowable by sophisticated instrumentation, they too should be logged.--Gaff talk 21:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless you can find something really good, there's about 1.0x10^21 stars, which would together take up quite a bit of server space. --CastAStone 04:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • From what I have read, server space is really not an issue with wikipedia. And I doubt seriously that all 1.0x10^21 stars will ever get logged, but good luck. When they do, my vote for ALL will be KEEP. Way more notable that all the Final Fantasy and WarCraft 3 garbaaaage that winds up on wikipedia.--Daniel Lotspeich 04:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable astronomical object. Capitalistroadster 05:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep useful entry--but wikipedia should have only visible or 'historical' stars ie. apparent magnitude <=6 Eric A. Warbuton 07:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree with that Eric. I think that wikipedia should have every single star ever named or noted!--Gaff 07:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whenever an article is deleted from Wikipedia, a star goes out in the sky... Mind you, 57 Aquilae is a much more interesting object. Grutness...wha? 10:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, random star. Pilatus 11:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not give any information that makes the star different from thousands of others. If it is indeed "notable" and "interesting", then write the reason for that down in the article, and I'll withdraw my vote. - Andre Engels 13:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As of now, it looks like Pilatus and AndreEngels are only holdouts voting to delete. Hopefully they will come around so we can have a consensus. I really cannot see how this article will be deleted without creating a lot of controversy. As Marskell describes below, a better method of categorizing stars, e.g. by constellation will make for project in the future. For now, keep the article as it contains useful information.--Gaff talk 22:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Gaff, when I said take a deep breath I didn't mean it to belittle you but to underscore that you need not get overly anxious about a vote that is going in the direction you desire. This article will be kept. Twelve to fifteen keep with two deletes is consensus. If twenty odd deletes appeared in the next minute it would still be kept (and note again I have not voted delete here). So don't worry! And don't badger the one or two people voting delete—they don't have to "come around." Start User:Gaff/Star chart. I will help you. Yes, these one liner entries could be placed in a more useful spot. Marskell 22:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. DS 14:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — there are only a few thousand stars visible to the naked eye, and even fewer that have Flamsteed designations. That makes it notable enough to keep, at least in my book. :) — RJH 16:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if a star is not visible to the naked eye, it is still notable. Stars are significant enough by the mere fact of their existence. As will be every planet known and yet to be discovered. Asteroids may be questionable. Moons of planets are notable. All stars are notable. BTW I will sign this 'Gaff' but to avoid any accusations of sock puppetry, note that I am Daniel Lotspeich (nominator of this article for AfD in the first place).--Gaff 17:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, neutral, factual, verifiable. Trollderella 16:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment "Stars are significant enough by the mere fact of their existence." No: a mass of "hydrogen and helium" is non-notable in the same way the "bricks and mortar" of my corner store is non-notable—in some ways even more so, because at least I can provide incidental details of a corner store. Stars with planets, luminous and visible stars, stars in notable constellations etc., OK. I'll wait for a second sentence here to prove something of this sort. Marskell 21:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Stars that are visible from where? Stars are not even in the same league as bricks and mortar on the corner store. I'm not arguing that every quark in every nucleus of every atom of helium in every star warrants an article. But I thought that wikipedia would contain the sum of all human knowledge or something along those lines. Lets start by agreeing that really, really big things like stars are notable and go from there. What about galaxies known to exist that are not visible to the naked eye? Should they be left out as well?? --Gaff talk 21:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Visible from here. "Systemic bias surely!" "Indeed, I'm systemically biased toward the Earth!" Yes, from a certain perspective stars are of course in a different league than corner stores but their representation here isn't. If I can't say anything about it beyond the fact of its existence (or non-notable incidentals—"red brick store," "m class star") I don't think it belongs. Wiki is not a (star or any other type of) directory. Note, however, I'm not delete. Just again, prove its more than your average mass of a quintillion pounds of hydrogen :). Marskell 22:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Its an issue of scale. Every known star is notable as far as I am concerned. Even if not visible to the naked eye. (As an aside, I wear contacts. If some evening I do not have on my contacts and cannot see a certain star, can I vote to have it deleted?) I'm not suggesting we catalog every brick just because each is unique in its own way, but every star? Stars are just so darned big that how can one argue they are non-notable. I'm also not suggesting that wikipedia be merely a directory of dry facts either. That's why the article need still be labeled stub. But in the case of extraordinarily gigantic things like stars, I think they are notable by the mere fact of their existence...--Gaff talk 23:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed they are darned big, but to repeat if you can't say more about them than the fact that they exist they don't belong. Do you know how many M class stars astronomers figure are in the galaxy? Yes we could have a quarter trillion pages (not a joke) with the following "8978735812cxh is an M-class red dwarf" or "3846751191olm is an M-class red dwarf" or, say, "5770192281jqa is an M-class red dwarf" but, hey, I don't think that's why wiki is here. Or this wiki at least. Start wikistars! Marskell 23:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Seriously? A quarter million M-class red dwarfs? That would take a long time to catalog. How long do you think that this encyclopedia will be around? Is money to finance the storage of an encyclopedia as all encomassing as this one hopes to be a limiting factor, to keep it from ever containing the sum of human knowledge? Even to limit it from containing known verifiable objects of the magnitude of an M-class red dwarf? If 100 yrs from now wikipedia is still around and people are wanting something to put in the encyclopedia, only to find that guys like Merovingian have already cataloged all 'visible' stars, then will it be worthy of entry? What is the harm in having lesser stars here alongside the pieces of magic armor from Warcraft 3 or an obsolete operating system? --Gaff talk 23:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No, a quarter trillion (six orders of magnitude difference). And no, we don't and never will have server space for a quarter trillion anything. Marskell 23:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, lets cross that bridge when we get there. For now, I vote every star stays. Out of curiosity, how much server space would that require?--Gaff talk 05:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Seriously folks, write articles on all the stars in the sky. There will be no problem finding server space. There are in fact doctors around here that have an interest in WP projects and will help finance the endeavor.--Gaff talk 11:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep agree with Kappa. Jeez guys! There are only 2,000 naked eye visible stars! Wiki is not paper, for crying out loud. There is no downside to keeping this star. -- Geo Swan 22:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: We have more articles for little villages in the middle of nowhere than stars. The stars are going to be around a lot longer than the villages. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Astronomy, light pollution notwithstanding, is actually a very interesting subject for us insomniacs without a social life. --Fire Star 02:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notable or not, there is no point in dedicating an entire article to: Phi2 Cancri (abbr.: 23/φ2 Cnc) is a star in the constellation Cancer. Its apparent magnitude is 6.30. (As an example) The existence of something does not make it notable until we know something about it. If something revolutionary is discovered about any of the 15 other one-line star articles, then I would emphatically vote to keep them, but as is, there is nothing notable enough about most of these stars to have them in anything but List of stars in the constellation Cancer. - Pureblade | ☼ 03:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • And these are stubs that are being created here. Not ready for Featured Article to be sure, but as stubs go, they are valid. Sorry to keep repeating myself, but stars are significant and notable.--Gaff talk 04:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. They are all stubs. Ready to be expanded.--Gaff talk 10:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • First Gaff, take a deep breath. It's going to be kept OK? Yes, you're repeating all "stars are significant and notable" but there is no argument as to why beyond darned big and that strikes me as insufficient. "Keep but expand"? In a large number of cases expansion isn't really going to be possible. There is very very little that actually differentiates one star from another and that which does—metallicity say—isn't a notability claim. As, I think, Martin Rees once said "an insect is more complicated than a star." A series of single sentence entries doesn't strike me as useful; indeed, creating constellation lists and having the star name redirect there might be more user-friendly. Marskell 13:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your expressed concern regarding the volume of my respirations. Rest assured my breathing is just fine. Its a good thing that the article will be kept as it along with any article on a star is notable (as per all of my arguments above).--Gaff talk 16:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • But I do appreciate your comments about keeping things user friendly. A centralized list of stars might prevent sprawl. It will be a very long list, but might be a better way to go tha trillions of separate articles. Although, there is something cool about hitting the random article link in the sidebar and finding a star.--Gaff talk 16:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Not a centralized list for all: arrange by constellation and have each individual star name re-direct to it. If not in a constellation then yes, a generic list. Save individual star pages for stars that have planets, are super-massive etc. And create a template chart: apparent magnitude, spectral class, planets (yes/no), metallicity, variable (yes/no) etc. Searching "56 Aquilae" and coming up with a list like this rather than the page as it stands would be more useful. Marskell 22:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The article already links back to its home constellation. I see no harm in having a separate article for each star. I do like your proposal for organazing stars on the constellation page, although the way they are already is nice as well. Kudos to Merovingian btw for tirelessly plugging in star article after star article the way that he has been recently. My vote remains keep.--Gaff talk 08:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per RJH. Xoloz 15:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Is there a database somewhere we could import info on stars from, a la Rambot? the wub "?!" 23:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - All these uninteresting stars don't need an article of their own. They should be listed on one page. Any star that is notable can get a page to itself. Seriously, it's bad enough clicking "Random Article" and getting a US county every second time without hundreds of stubs about unremarkable stars compounding the problem. Reyk 04:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I should add: just because a certain bit of information is worth having in Wikipedia, it doesn't automatically make it worthy of an article to itself. In fact, by having a seperate article for information that could just as easily be listed in a table, the reader loses out by not being able to compare the thing in question with other similar things. Reyk 05:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Preferably merge to Aquila. Failing that, delete. All the information presented is factual and encyclopedic, but as its own article it's a permanent stub. Some stars are notable, but this star is not. ~~ N (t/c) 14:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If you look at the page Aquila, you will find an entry for Aquila (constellation). On that page, near the bottom is a table of notable and named stars. The question here is more about how to handle all stars, not just this particular star.—Gaff talk 15:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, then, merge to that list. As to the issue of "all stars", that must be decided on a case-by-case basis, but I say that stars get articles if and only if there is something more to say about them than the standard luminosity, spectral class, size, date of discovery, etc. ~~ N (t/c) 19:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • That may in fact be the most reasonable course, then maybe have redirects from the names of lesser stars back to their specific constellation. The "all stars" issue is a current issue, that maybe needs to be addressed on more than a case by case basis. Merovingian and other users have been working hard to create many, many articles on individual stars that they feel are notable enough to warrant individual articles. Perhaps a project or taskforce 'stars' could be created to reach a consensus on how to handle this question. I was the one to first nom this for deletion. However, I see that it is not a clear cut issue, as evidenced by the fact that the contributor is Merovingian, who has made extensive contributions to WP and is running for the arbitration committee. There are many, many star articles on WP now, and perhaps a more formal policy needs to be created to manage such an enormous topic.—Gaff talk 20:47, 17 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_56_Aquilae_7dfc.html"