Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue dwarf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Neil ╦ 12:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue dwarf

Blue dwarf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article is titled blue dwarf, but it's about blue giants. Do blue dwarfs actually exist? Voortle 01:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes BlueEarth 16:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed malformed nom. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as possible hoax -- seems Blue giant covers it all, and I don't think blue dwarves exist. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Smells like a hoax to me. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 01:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Get me a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram stat! Actually this diff sort of explains what is meant. And there is a Blue Dwarf category. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 01:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Additional comment Honestly, I think this is one Afd that needs a bit of input from the experts. The article needs clarification, certainly, so I will drop a line on the WikiProject Astronomy talk-page and look for input. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 02:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not know what to do with this article, however this google search gets me plenty of scholarly references. Mostly to do with galaxies, apparently, but as such usage is in existence for decades, I think a simple deletion isn't the way to go. FrozenPurpleCube 02:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - certainly looked like a hoax to me, but then I saw [1] and [2]. Agree with FlowerpotmaN; expert needed. Lipsticked Pig 03:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not an expert, but I do frequent an astronomy board. I'll ask around there tomorrow and see what we get. -- Kesh 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment That definition sounds like a white dwarf. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Technically, there are no real blue giants either. We should probably consult an expert. Bradybd 08:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article was about Blue dwarfs until recently when an anon changed all references to dwarf to giant. Plenty of evidence that there are both blue dwarves and blue giants as two separate star types. I believe they both exist and there has been a lot of new classification of stars in recent years. It appears to be a very accepted classification in Astronomy. See refs [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Seems commonplace in astronomical circles and the anon edit [9] (only edit they've ever made) was actually ether vandalism or a good faith misunderstood edit. In addition there are many stars on Wikipedia in the Blue Dwarf category. Ben W Bell talk 09:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The article referred to blue dwarfs from the start; however, I'm pretty sure it did so incorrectly. The first non-stub revision read "Blue dwarfs [... have] a mass of 50 Suns." This sounds totally wrong for a hypothetical "blue dwarf", as the mass limit for a white dwarf is around 1.4 Suns - any larger and they go nova. I'm not an astrophysicist, but all the evidence points towards this article having been written (intentionally or unintentionally) about blue giants from the start. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Ben, many of those references you cited are about blue dwarf galaxies, which is a different class of object that is distinct from blue dwarf stars.--mikeu 19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The article is about blue main sequence (hydrogen-burning) stars, which is already covered at blue giants. The other blue stars that could be considered dwarfs are white dwarfs, which are described at white dwarf. This article on blue dwarfs just confuses the issue. It would be best just to delete this article. Keeping it as a redirect does not even seem appropriate, as it is unclear where to redirect the article. (This may indicate that it would be appropriate to rename articles about specific classes of stars using technical terms but keeping the common names as redirects. So, for example, blue giant would be renamed O III star. This could prevent confusion in the future.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep if blue dwarfs actually exist, otherwise delete. If blue dwarfs exist, but nothing can be written about them, then make a disambiguation page between white dwarf and blue giant. Voortle 13:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A look at the references returned by google scholar [10] show only four mentions of the phrase, so the term has been used on occasion, but it is not common or in widespread use. Does not merit an article, since as Dr. Submillimeter mentions, the subject is covered elsewhere.--mikeu 19:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - One of mikeu's comments highlighted an interesting point: "blue dwarf" is most likely to be used to refer to blue compact dwarf galaxies, not individual stars. I would recommend making this a redirect to blue compact dwarf galaxy, but the article does not yet exist. Dr. Submillimeter 20:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral Comment: Just pointing out again that there is a Blue Dwarfs category which uses this article as its main article, so bear in mind that something might have to be done with this category. At the moment, there are only nine stars in the category. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 22:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - The category and the articles in the category are a mess. Apparently, "blue dwarf" is supposed to refer to OV stars. Some of the stars in the category are type OV stars, but at least one (Zeta Ophiuchi) is an OIII star, and a couple (e.g. Omega Herculis) do not have luminosity classes listed in the article or in the SIMBAD Astronomical Database, which would be the first reference that I would check for information on these stars. Dr. Submillimeter 07:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I assume that the category would not be created if the whole thing were a hoax. I am not an astronomer and thus am unqualified to comment on the content, but wonder whether we are dealing the results of inadequately repaired vandalism. If so, the solution is to ask an expert to attend to the article, rather than list it for AFD. Because I do not know neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 00:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Looking at Category:Stars by spectral type, it seems that blue dwarf is part of a scheme to describe stars by spectral class using layman's terms. The problem with this approach is that most classes of stars are not described by anyone using these terms. (Try finding references that describe K III stars as orange giants, for example.) I have made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Do star spectral class articles/categories need renaming? regarding these types of articles and categories. However, I still suggest deleting this article, as it is unclear that "blue dwarf" would ever be used to describe O V stars and as the material is mostly redundant with blue giant. Dr. Submillimeter 08:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunate delete — The topic of star types is covered in some detail by the stellar classification article. This article just seems to be a summary of a combined stellar and luminosity class and doesn't really add anything. Also I've seen the word "dwarf" is used in multiple senses in astronomy publications, including stars along the main sequence (which I think this article is meant to cover). But type-O stars are humongous stars, leading to the proverbial "giant dwarf". — RJH (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is about stars with spectral type O and luminosity class V, which certainly exist. So, it is not a hoax. It is named poorly, but the remedy for this is renaming, not deletion. Also, the blue giant article is about stars with spectral type O and luminosity class III. (Both articles are part of a larger series of articles which classify stars by spectral type and luminosity class.) Therefore, the assertion that this article is redundant with blue giant is not correct. Spacepotato 01:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Note the other problems above with the article and its name. If kept, can this be renamed as Type-O V star or Type-O dwarf star? I sincerely believe that "blue dwarf" is more likely to be used as a synonym for blue compact dwarf galaxies. Also, both blue dwarf and blue giant describe Type-O main sequence stars, so they are very close to redundant. However, this article might fit into a hierarchy of articles sorted by spectral and luminosity class. Dr. Submillimeter 09:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I agree that blue dwarf is more likely to refer to a galaxy. Fortunately we are free to rename the article, unless it's deleted. Spacepotato 22:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixation - I changed every blue giants to blue dwarfs in the main article as identified as mistake or vandalism. BlueEarth 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you sure that's correct, though? Zetawoof(ζ) 00:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, blue dwarf are not the same as blue giant. Blue dwarf is O V and blue giant is O III. BlueEarth 16:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment - At least we are guessing that "blue dwarf" refers to O V stars. The term "blue dwarf" is almost never used in astronomy this way. Dr. Submillimeter 21:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I mean the rest of it - are you sure that the data in the article (mass, luminosity, rarity) matches the title? Zetawoof(ζ) 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment - The entire text is poorly written and unreferenced. If the article is kept, it would probably be necessary to rewrite it anyway. (I would use Allen's Astrophysical Quantities.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete - I found one incidence of the word in astronomical literature. Apparently, one of the Algol stars is a blue dwarf. "The Algols contain a hot blue dwarf star with a magnetically-active late-type companion. In the close Algols, the gas stream flows directly into the photosphere of the blue mass-gaining star because it does not have enough room to avoid impact with that star." From M T Richards, Astronomische Nachrichten v325 issue 3 p229 2004. [11] I say keep the article and flag as in need of attention from an expert.--Smtomak 06:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - The Astronomische Nachrichten is not a widely-used or widely-referenced journal in professional astronomy. I have hardly ever (if ever) seen the journal used as a reference in any professional publications. It is not at all comparable to other professional journals, such as the Astrophysical Journal, the Astronomical Journal, Astronomy & Astrophysics, and the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Moreover, based on the name, the Astronomische Nachrichten appears to be written in German and then translated into English. I would not use the journal to determine English naming conventions for astronomical objects. (Also, the SIMBAD Astronomical Database indicates that none of the stars in the Algol system are type O stars, so whatever is written in the blue dwarf article would not apply to Algol.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Position changed to delete. --Smtomak 02:57, 10 June 2007 (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.