Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GW170817

GW170817

GW170817 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. We are not in the business of publishing rumours. Whatever this is/was, it may still just go away and turn out to be nothing. For the moment, all potential reliable sources on the matter are under embargo. Consequently, reliable sources on the subject simply cannot exist. If something was seen, we can be sure there will be official announcements and this page can be recreated. However, if nothing was seen no reliable sources may ever appear. WP:RUMOUR and WP:NOTNEWS apply here, TR 11:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  12:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  12:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Famous_dog (c) 12:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep: Thank you for the notice re the possible deletion of the "GW170817" article and related - as OA of the article, please understand that I have no objection whatsoever to the final decision (ie, "WP:CONSENSUS"?) - to maintain - or remove the article - for my part, however, the article seemed sufficiently worthy (based on cited references) to include and update with the latest relevant news from "WP:RSs" - in any regards - Thanks again for the notice - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

FWIW: Also worth considering? - other unconfirmed (but perhaps still worthy nonetheless?) astronomy-related articles => seems "the majority of "KOIs" are as yet not confirmed transiting planet systems" (as noted in the KOI article, see => "Kepler object of interest") - apparently, however, there are several example articles (albeit some tagged) of unconfirmed (rumored?) KOIs, including (after a casual search) => "KOI-2124.01", "KOI-7296.01", "KOI-7599.01", "KOI-7617.01", more? - as before - maybe also worth considering? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Merge: Multiple RS picked up on the story. That there is a gravitational wave generated by a binary neutron star collision is indeed a rumor. That numerous telescopes suddenly targeted, under a priority interrupt protocol, galaxy NGC 4993, including at least one for the sake of a gravitational wave alert, is not a rumor. It's also very interesting that such a multi-telescope observation took place. The information can moved to the galaxy article, or to GRB 170817A. 129.68.81.173 (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

delete: as per WP:TOOSOON (Mandot) 15:15, 31 August 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandot (talk • contribs)

Delete for now - really, anything that is at the "rumour" stage has no business having an article of its own. Once confirmed, might be incorporated into Gravitational_wave#LIGO_observations, and could then always be spun off into separate article if it turns out to be of importance. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. At this point it merits mention only on the NGC 4993 article; the GRB 170817A article is also tagged for the same reason (if the rumor turns out to be false, there isn't anything particularly notable about that GRB). Cthomas3 (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether this has to be a real event or not in order to be notable is incorrect. Most scientific false alarms that have spilled over into the popular press, while disappointing in the end, will still be of interest as to what went wrong. The excitement here is comparable to BICEP2 B-modes and the 750 Gev anomaly.

A known real event is that numerous big-time telescopes allowed a priority interrupt of their normally very tightly limited observing schedules. Non-involved experts were cited in top-level scientific RSs about this known real event regarding conclusions that could be drawn from such an unusual occurence. We have reproduced what these experts have said about this known real event. 129.68.81.110 (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree that it deserves mention for exactly the reasons you describe, but everything we currently know about the event is already on the GRB and galaxy page. If the rumors turn out to be false, a year from now no one will care about the now-stricken GW (or the associated GRB), but it would still be an interesting and notable fact about the galaxy. All I am saying is let's wait to create the article until we know more. Cthomas3 (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The two examples that you give are interesting: I agree with your assessment that there are some similarities here. For BICEP2, there is no standalone article on the B-mode detection event, but the BICEP and CMB article both make mention of it, as they should. There is a standalone article on the 750 GeV diphoton excess, but that one dragged on for many months and received continued press coverage over that time (and even some after). If this rumor persists for a similar amount of time and continues to receive press coverage as a result, I would agree that it deserves its own article as well. But right now we are still too early in the game to make that determination. Cthomas3 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I supported Merge above, but I believe in giving precise arguments with regards to policy. Here are some more precise data points: Harry Collins has written entire books about LIGO blind injections. We have an article about the 750 GeV diphoton excess anomaly. We have an article about the disputed exoplanet Gliese 581g. The most interesting false alarms do have WP articles.

My point is that per WP policy, the discussion should be whether this event has passed an appropriate threshhold, and not about waiting to find out whether this event turns out to be exciting or boring in the long-run.

Irrelevant aside: I quickly skimmed through the just-released LIGO Magazine 11. Apparently no easter eggs, unlike LIGO Magazine 8. 129.68.81.110 (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep CRYSTAL/RUMOUR says "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." so an article is nor precluded a priori It seems to be there are sources appropriate for passing the general notability guidelines. Thincat (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that the coverage has been significant enough to raise the profile of the event, but the issue here is going to be WP:SUSTAINED. The reason this event is receiving any coverage at all is because of the possibility that it is notable, not because of any known facts about it. If the rumors aren't true, the will be one last round of "oops, false alarm" in the press and that will be that. There is certainly a chance that this is truly notable, but right now we just don't know. News organizations have to pick this up even if it's speculation, because for them speculation is enough to generate views. For an encyclopedia, significant news coverage on a disproved rumor generally doesn't belong in its own article unless the hoax itself gains significant coverage after the fact. Cthomas3 (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep likewise for GRB 170817A. The possible GW candidate rumour got more than enough notice in the press to be notable. I've got no objections to a merge to NGC 4993 however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Rumours about new flagship phones tend to get lots of press coverage. Yet, for very good reasons we do not go making articles about them before they are announced. Those same reasons apply here. The fact that even the name of this article is completely made up by the creator (based on an educated guess but nothing more than that), is a clear indication that this article should probably not exist (yet). TR 12:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Technology device rumors are part and parcel of marketing campaigns. There is no comparison, and the same reasons do not apply. The name is not made up: GW names follow a precisely known pattern. 129.68.81.110 (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Although we know the pattern of previous names, this does not guarantee the same will be used here. The name therefore is a case of WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, we do not know enough about the event (if it even exists) to establish the name properly. For example, if the events ends up with a low significance, it could be classed an "LVT" OR in the event that more than one GW event was detected on the same day it could end up as GW170817B OR LIGO may go with something else entirely. The point is we don't know (cant know). In fact, currently the only google hits for "GW170817" are on Wikipedia. We should not be making shit up.TR 15:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Naming conventions are very conservative. I'm not concerned about different names: SS433 has perhaps two dozen names, any of which can be a redirect. I agree the name is problematic, and if the article is to be kept, a hokier name would be appropriate or, as I recommended above, merging with a non-problematic name. 129.68.81.110 (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)