Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Astronomy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:29, 30 August 2016

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to astronomy. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Astronomy|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to astronomy. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Astronomy/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Astronomy

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 keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Mandelbaum

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:PROF The Sloan Fellowship is to "provide support and recognition to early-career scientists and scholars" so is not sufficient for notability. Sources are press releases from the University where she is an Associate Professor. Her high citation works are the Sloan Digital Sky Surveys where there are scores of co-authors. Jbh ^Talk 15:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The nominator is correct to imply that it is difficult to ascertain the degree of independent achievement with papers with such vast numbers of co-authors. However, Looking at the well-cited papers with fewer co-authors, I find provisionally that WP:Prof#C1 is passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Possibly you are seeing something I am not. I have found few papers with fewer than ~10 co-authors. Possibly this is normal in her field but I did not see many where she was the principle author either. She is an early-in-career Associate Professor. It is highly unlikely, mired in a pack of co-authors and this early in her career, with few papers which she is principle author of, that her work has yet "made a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" per PROF#C1. In such a case I would expect to see some coverage in RS or major awards within the discipline rather than "up-and-comer" awards if she passed PROF#C1. Jbh ^Talk 01:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is in that part of an academic career that is frustrating for Wikipedia editors. The awards are all early career awards. There is little documentation of the impact of an academic career prior to receiving major awards or getting an obituary in Physics Today. I've added her CV and pubs to the article (2 documents for some reason). She divides her publications into regular work and large group collaborations. As for papers with less than 10 authors, she published 12 of them in 2015 and 6 in 2014 if I've counted authors right. As for highly cited articles:

2013 first author of 8, cited by 106, Cosmological parameter constraints from galaxy–galaxy lensing and galaxy clustering with the SDSS DR7
2010 second author of 7, cited by 224, Confirmation of general relativity on large scales from weak lensing and galaxy velocities
2008 first author of 3, cited by 172, A halo mass—concentration relation from weak lensing
2006 first author of 6, cited by 177, Density profiles of galaxy groups and clusters from SDSS galaxy–galaxy weak lensing

StarryGrandma (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think the Falco-DeBenedetti Career Development Professorship is good enough for WP:PROF#C5 (its name makes it sound like a mid-career thing rather than a higher-level distinguished professorship) but looking at Google scholar and discounting the SDSS hits still gives a convincing pass of WP:PROF#C1. And I think coverage of a project she leads in a Nature news piece [1] is another indication of significance. (See also [2] [3] [4] for less-high-profile media coverage of her research.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed that she passes Prof C1. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2016 (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.

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 keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CX CMa

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

Its been tagged to death, but apparently abandoned by the original author. Much of the article is incomprehensible, or likely wrong. It is a faint eclipsing binary star, one of hundreds of the type, . It is not contained in the list of stars in Canis Major, or the template for stars of Canis Major, a big clue that this is not a notable object per WP:NASTRO. Simbad lists nine papers mentioning the star, an astonishingly low number. Even more astonishingly, four of them are about either this star or a small number of objects including this star. There was a flurry of interest in 1984 that the light curve of some eclipsing variables showed an interesting asymmetry, refuted a few years later. Lithopsian (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article, hopefully improving it in the process. As for the O'Connell effect that Lithopsian apparently means: I have not found a refutation of it, rather there is a variety of explanations for this observed phenomenon. It might be worth a separate article. Aside from that, I believe that the article "CX CMa" should be renamed into "CX Canis Majoris" in order to keep in line with other articles on stars. --Schlosser67 (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly if the article is kept, it should be renamed as suggested. The article is now a passable stub rather than a half-nonsense mash-up. Still not notable, though ;) Lithopsian (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A final relist will hopefully bring further discussion to reach a consensus. — Music1201 ^talk 21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: based upon three publications that include the object's name in their titles, it appears to just satisfy the WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2016 (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.

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 keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Adelberger

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

Orphaned, and as far as I can tell, meets almost no criteria for notability. Hampton (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:Prof#C1 with 12 papers in GS with over 500 cites each. Nominator needs to study WP:Prof before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 10:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that subject passes WP:PROF ArchieOof (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely appears to meet WP:PROF C1 and article is sourced reliably. A Train^talk 22:53, 8 September 2016 (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.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Mandelbaum}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CX_CMa}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Space_Commission}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kurt_Adelberger}}