Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GJ 3522


 * 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The result was deleted without prejudice (except for LP 658-2, which is withdrawn from the nomination). bd2412 T 23:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

GJ 3522

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mass unPRODing of mass User:Chermundy-created stubs that were mass-prodded a while back per WP:NASTRO. They still fails WP:NASTRO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons



Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 16:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Is listing in the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars considered to satisfy WP:NASTCRIT #2 (perhaps especially those with integer numbers <= 915, appearing in the original edition forward)? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Not in the least. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete all, then, for failing both NASTRO's general conditions, and the mass creation restriction. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. WP:NASTRO states that mass creations should be discussed at WT:ASTRO first. Ifnord (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. These all seem to be cited only to large catalogues of stars and not to papers that discuss them specifically. Reyk YO! 19:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

My preferences: Praemonitus (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep on LP 658-2 – this one is cited and I found some evidence of minor notability
 * 2) Weak delete on LP 993-115 – this has cites, but doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG
 * 3) Delete the remainder as low quality substubs of mediocre stars with no citations.


 * LP 658-2 has 0 zeros sources that discuss it specifically. Only listings in massive tables. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it is mentioned several times in Liebert et al. (1979), Kapranidis & Liebert (1986), and Wickramasinghe et al. (1982), among others. That is sufficient for me to consider it notable, your opinion notwithstanding. Praemonitus (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see much but trivial coverage in in Liebert 1979, but Kapranidis & Liebert do use it as a comparison star, and Wickramasinghe et al. does have a dedicated paragraph to it. I'll withdraw LP 658-2 from this nomination for sake of expediency. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Notable. They all have significant coverage in the sources cited in SIMBAD, that satisfies GNG. Inclusion in the Gliese catalogue plainly satisfies criteria 2 of NASTRO as being a catalogue of high historical importance. All of these stars are exceptional in that they are very close to us, being less than thirty light years away. I think it is ridiculous to nominate nearly thirty articles for deletion in a single AfD. It seems to me that there is no possibility of complying with WP:BEFORE due to the large number of sources. I should point out that WP:REFUND is not creation, and that the guideline NASTRO cannot restrict the right to REFUND created by the policy WP:PROD. WP:DEPROD clearly states "any page which has been deleted as a result of a proposed deletion can be undeleted upon request". PROD also states "even after it has been deleted, anyone may have a PRODed article or file restored through a request for undeletion" and "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" which was certainly violated by the original PRODs. If the guideline purports to require discussion before the REFUND of a PROD, then the guideline is in violation of the policy and must be immediately modified to comply with the policy. Policies trump guidelines. You cannot use a guideline to override a policy. Ever. If editors continue to insist on advancing interpretations of the guideline NASTRO that blatantly violate the policy PROD, I shall have no option but to go down to WT:NASTRO and see to it that corrective surgery is performed on the guideline to make it comply with the policy by whatever means are necessary up to and including RfC. James500 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input James500. I would recommend taking a look at WP:Civility. The WP:NASTRO policy was built up via thoughtful consensus, and I believe it should remain so. If you have concerns about the current policy, I suggest taking it to the policy's talk page first before attempting to make wholesale changes that will quickly be reverted. Praemonitus (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * NASTRO is a guideline, not a policy. There is a technical distinction between guidelines and policies. James500 (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is a guideline as well, so even if there was a magical distinction between policy/guideline/essays/whatever, it does not refute the core of the argument. These do not have substantial coverage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * James: So ... you're not going to stop casting these !votes without making a bold "keep" recommendation then? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hijiri88: Are you going to stop trolling and violating WP:HOUND, or shall I just put Template:Retired on my user page? Your behaviour has completely exhausted my patience. If you plan to continue trolling and wikihounding, please let me know now, because I will simply leave. James500 (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Or you could simply edit in accordance to our guidelines and not ask to bulk restore things that don't have a chance of passing WP:NASTRO. Use a scalpel, not a chainsaw. Out of your 25-30 dePROD requests, it seems 2 will survive. Everyone, you included, would have saved a lot of time if you were more selective with your requests and stuck to things that do meet our guidelines. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Responded to the above personal attack on my talk page, since that kind of comment is really inappropriate for AFD, and responding would be inappropriate as well. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment- not really sure what the "canvassing warning" template is doing at the top of the page. Reyk YO! 22:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Removed. It makes no sense, that's only something that should be added when there's canvassing going on. The only notices there is about this is a discussion at WT:ASTRO and the notices on the pages themselves. Everything is neutrally worded. And tomorrow it'll get picked up by WP:AALERTS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That notice is not neutrally worded. Words like "but upon inspect these sources do not consist of significant commentary, simply a listing in surveys" are anything but neutral. Your personal opinions about notability are not supposed to go in the notice. It is not desirable to put a notice in a thread that already contains criticism either, because the effect is suggestive juxtaposition. James500 (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. An accurate description of the sources is perfectly neutral. Conversely, simply saying "there are sources" while leaving out the problem that none of them provide significant coverage would not be neutral. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice This is a procedural matter, as the REFUND entries (sorry for the clumsy diff) showed a poor understanding (or perhaps deliberate misrepresentation) of GNG, as, for example, significant coverage in 166 sources in the SIMBAD database looks highly questionable: did the requester check all 166 of those sources for significant sources? Given the rapid-fire pace, it seems fairly likely that none of the sources were checked. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You know perfectly well that I means the sum total of coverage in the sources is significant. That is how GNG works. Giving the number is just a quick way of stopping trollish accusations of "you haven't looked at all". I felt it would be excessive to post a rationale that contained a detailed blow by blow breakdown of coverage. James500 (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Except it's not. WP:GNG states "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail", with examples of "The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM." Mere listings in surveys and databases constitutes trivial coverage. WP:NASTRO explains this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How can the sum total of coverage be significant if all the sources say the same thing? If you haven't read any of the sources, you can't say that when all of them are combined there is significant coverage. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:48, 27 June 2018 (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.