Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX Telescopii

RX Telescopii

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

RX Telescopii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This star fails the the notability test, including the criteria for astronomical objects. 1. It is not visible to the naked eye (the cutoff was set at 6.0), 2. it is not in any high-importance catalog (see the RX Telescopii page on SIMBAD), 3. it was never the subject of non-trivial works and 4. it was not discovered before 1850. SIMBAD cites 21 references for this star, but they are only large catalogs that cite hundreds to millions of objects. In 2020, it was thought to be the largest known star at a radius of ≈1900 R_☉, but it used a highly inaccurate distance and newer estimates give radii of 300 or 800 R_☉.

Although this is a deletion discussion, I suggest merging into List of stars in Telescopium, for saving page history. Deletion discussions generally have a larger participation than merge discussions and hence a more well-defined consensus. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I think the fact that it was considered one of the largest known stars is significant - the recalculating of it as a smaller object helps readers understand how scientists come to conclusions, realise they're incorrect with further information. The historical claim will be lost on any list page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think this information can be added to the List of largest known stars article. I found another radius of 879 R_☉ using the angular diameter and a distance of 2189 parsecs, which is corrected for removing the excess of astrometric noise.[1]. Then, it can be added to the article. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Problem is the star's latest and most accurate diameter means it is too small for the list unless slotted into the somwhat arbitrary "The following well-known stars are listed for the purpose of comparison." section. I'd prefer to keep the article as is where information is in one place. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Actually it is already in the list with a radius of 716 R_☉. I believe that these sizes of 716 and 872 R_☉ are more reliable than the 320 R_☉ from Gaia DR3, because they are consistent with the star's spectral type (Other stars with similar spectral types like Antares, Betelgeuse, RW Cygni, VV Cephei have similar sizes), and the Gaia's radius uses a spectrum-derived distance, but User:SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer told that these spectra are generally of very low resolution (50×50px) and can lead to misleading values. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of stars in Telescopium or List of largest known stars. There is very little substantial information published for "RX Tel"; hardly enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect or Delete. This is just another catalog object that has been WP:OR'd into what looks like something important but is really just a grab bag of catalog entries. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)