Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stellar angular diameters


 * 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   redirect to List of stars with resolved images. Consensus not to have an article, unclear if there's still stuff to merge, but if yes it can be done from the history.  Sandstein  20:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

List of stellar angular diameters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list is impossible to make comprehensive due to the vast number of stars known (such a comprehensive list would nearly as long as all other Wikipedia articles combined, I'd guess). Aside from that, such information is better actually included in the articles themselves than in this list. Remember here, Wikipedia is not a directory. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Conditional support – If this list cannot be expanded more, then delete it. However, if someone can expand it, I suggest until the top 30 or 40. SkyFlubbler (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes if this is going to exist it must just be a list of angular diameters starting from the biggest and then decreasing through a fixed number. Perhaps planets could be in this too as a comparason. But as it stands the article is pretty useless. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Being too big/difficult to maintain are not valid reasons for deletion. The lists can easily be split A-Z if size is an issue. Clear inclusion criteria of a notable topic.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as a rather bizarre and impossible to maintain list. It falls into WP:NOTDIRECTORY pretty spectacularly. I admit I'm confused by Lugnut's statement that this is a clearly notable topic, and would suggest it is exactly the opposite. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain (but prefer Move over Delete) Measuring the angular diameter of stars is currently very hard to do. I anticipated the list to grow by about 1 or 2 per decade until a space-based mission can do a whole bunch of them in one go. In 300 years the list ought to be a fairly reasonable length and accuracy. As the creator of this article, I suppose I would like it to stay, but if the vote goes the other way, please instead move it to a subpage of my user page (i.e. User:Nickshanks/List of stellar angular diameters) so that I and my descendants at least can maintain it as more stars have their angular diameters measured. — Nicholas (reply) @ 16:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted this and, if it closed as delete, will certainly move it to your preferred subpage. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of stars with resolved images, a much better-quality listing of almost the same information. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Per Nickshanks, few stars have had their angular diameters discovered, so it doesn't matter how many stars are known, the number of stars whose angular diameters is known is much much less. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Rewrite convert this into a List of stars with the largest angular diameters ; it can complement List of largest stars as the apparent size versus the real size -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of stars with resolved images, per David Eppstein, why duplicate content needlessly? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC) New vote below. AstroCog (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Resolving the image is not necessary to determine the angular diameter Michelson certainly didn't resolve an image, just an interference pattern. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Huntster. Anyone with a calculator can take the distance from Earth and the star's diameter and calculate the angular diameter. This information is better suited on the individual stars' pages. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The star's true diameter is not a measurable quantity (except for the Sun), so it is a theoretical quantity based on a stellar model. The angular diameter presented here is a measured quantity. Observables should be available, since they are actual measurements. (hence the problem between model and reality encountered in early Cepheid surveys that unknowingly combined two types of stars, Population I and II, leading to inaccurate distance predictions) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point; I suppose it's actually the star's diameter that is the calculated value. However, my overall opinion hasn't changed (yet). Primefac (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of stars with resolved images Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Would that mean that the angular diameters would be added to the information in the resolved images list, or this AfD list would be merged (inappropriately) into that one? Primefac (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete On further comparison to List of stars with resolved images, I can't see anything that needs to be merged or added. None of the additional stars beyond the first three have sources to back up the numbers. Either somebody just calculated the angular diameters, making this a tediously silly list to maintain, or we're needlessly duplicating information already available in online databases. Either way, it's just too many stars. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can source a better listing, if this survives deletion. At the very least we can add the very first stars whose angular diameters were measured (by Michelson and Pease in the 1930s ; complied at ) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2015 (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.