Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GW170817

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 129.68.81.110 (talk) at 14:09, 1 September 2017 (→‎GW170817). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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

delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Famousdog (c) 12:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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[1][2][3][4][5]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Casttelvecchi, Davide (25 August 2017). "Rumours swell over new kind of gravitational-wave sighting". Nature News. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22482. Retrieved 31 August 2017.
  2. ^ McKinnon, Mika (23 August 2017). "Exclusive: We may have detected a new kind of gravitational wave". New Scientist. Retrieved 31 August 2017.
  3. ^ Staff (25 August 2017). "A very exciting LIGO-Virgo Observing run is drawing to a close August 25 [2017]". LIGO. Retrieved 31 August 2017.
  4. ^ Drake, Nadia (25 August 2017). "Strange Stars Caught Wrinkling Spacetime? Get the Facts". National Geographic (magazine). Retrieved 31 August 2017.
  5. ^ Sokol, Joshua (25 August 2017). "What Happens When Two Neutron Stars Collide?". Wired (magazine). Retrieved 31 August 2017.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GW170817&oldid=798368035"