Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Large pathetic galaxy (second nomination)

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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Large pathetic galaxy

Large pathetic galaxy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:N. Original link to CNN report now dead, and link to Hubble site appears to be about a completely different object. Furthermore, google reveals that the name came from a description of the object as a 'large pathetic galaxy', and no suggestion that this should be used as its name has ever been made anywhere apart from on Wikipedia. It was detected via its effect on the Milky Way's disk; if it's considered important then it could be mentioned in the Milky Way article. Chrislintott 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC) In case it's not obvious, delete Chrislintott 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The arguments in the previous AFD discussion for this article incorrectly assumed that the object in question was simply "unnamed" and that therefore "Large Pathetic Galaxy" should at least serve as a placeholder name. The object in fact has a number of proposed names in use, and the article that mentions them - Virgo Stellar Stream - existed at the time of the previous AFD. The object istelf passes WP:N with flying colors, however the term "large pathetic galaxy" was never used as a provisional name for the object, but merely a generic descripton of it. A redirect might be cheap but it would be misleading as it would effectively endorse the idea that LPG is an alternative name for this object, when it is not and never has been. Arkyan 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Virgo Stellar Stream. Although Arkyan makes a valid concern about endorsement, I think it does not harm because, if nothing else, it might prevent recreation of a similarly named article down the line. Part of me thinks it'd actually be cool to have a galaxy named this, though. Incidentally the fact the only linked source on this article is no longer active underscores the weakenesses in using online sources that fall behind subscription walls or simply expire. 23skidoo 20:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To redirect suggests that Large pathetic galaxy is an alternative name for something called the Virgo stellar stream. This isn't the case. Otherwise we could set up redirects for 'big damp city' to Manchester, 'hot red powder' for chilli and every other description possible for anything in the encyclopedia. Chrislintott 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the original statement about a "a rather pathetic galaxy" attributed to Robert Lupton is now called the Virgo Overdensity,[1] or Virgo Stellar Stream. So I believe 23skidoo is correct and a redirect would be suitable. However my preference is for delete because I don't expect to see this name being used for lookups. — RJH (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Move to [BDS2000] 122 - In the last AfD discussion, I found this Astrophysical Journal paper that appears to describe the object that was in the CNN article. The object appeared to correspond to an object listed in the SIMBAD database as "[BDS2003] 122". I therefore suggest moving the article to that new name. Dr. Submillimeter 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look through this paper, and see no evidence that it is the same object that is described in Large peculiar galaxy. Of course, I can't read the CNN article as it has now vanished, but the paper described a cluster of red supergiants with no suggestion that said cluster was ever external to our own galaxy, or disrupted the Milky Way's structure. Chrislintott 22:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I think I may have linked the Wikipedia entry to the cited Astrophysical Journal article through names in the CNN article or another mainstream press article. If kept, then the article would need to be revised significantly, so maybe deletion would be appropriate anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 10:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and the arguments I made in the previous AfD. No need for a redirect as this is not in fact an alternative name, merely a description used on one occasion by researchers. The name is inherently non-notable. WjBscribe 12:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Potentially useful redirect to Virgo Stellar Stream. Spacepotato 02:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 06:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Relisted per request at deletion review, which the initial closer Seraphimblade agreed to. No opinion from me. ~ trialsanderrors 06:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- WjBscribe 06:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Okay, in the Reuters link where Lupton says "large pathetic galaxy", he's not using that as a name, so there shouldn't be a redirecting title. A trivial comparison suggests the actual object Lupton is talking about is surely this, and that SDSS release directs the reader to astro-ph/0510589 where the name "Virgo Stellar Stream" is proposed. Identity established, but as others have said, a redirect would be misleading so let's not merge. Instead of using any content from this page, I will write from scratch a blurb that includes "large pathetic galaxy" over at Virgo Stellar Stream. That way the GFDL does not demand the revision history of this page (since I'm not cross-pollinating content), and searchers on google will still be able to find relevant information using a "large pathetic galaxy" search string (which may have entered the public consciousness, if someone used the phrase to start an article here). Anyway, that should resolve everything, and there's no need for a merge, so delete. — coelacan — 07:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Never mind, I see the Virgo Stellar Stream article already references the "pathetic galaxy" bit. So there's really nothing left to do except delete now. — coelacan — 07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, it's a non-notable phrase made up one day at the observatory. There is absolutely no evidence provided to back up the claim that it's an "informal designation". It looks to have been a description (by an individual), not a designation! At best, it was a very temporary nickname or protologism. Xtifr _tälk 09:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this, allow a redirect if it is genuinely thought to eb useful. This is a term made up in an observatory one day and has no significant currency and no obvious reference in the literature. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per cogent arguments of WJBScribe and Coelacan. Nuff said. Jeffpw 10:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this was a head-scratcher but Coelacan parsed it very well. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above args. — RJH (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd heard of this discovery, but definitely not as "large pathetic galaxy". If we start having articles for each idiosyncratic utterance of a journalist, we'll end up with He scores!. (oh... no... there is a He Shoots, He Scores) Shenme 07:59, 22 March 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.