Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star naming controversy


 * 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   delete. Shi meru  20:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Star naming controversy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There is no controversy; this is an attempt to create a POV fork. The article creator has a conflict of interest in the star naming discussion and been attempting to use WP for advertising his business as when creating StarNamer. The article has no sources supporting his "side" of the discussion, only a self-published editorial; the rest is a linkfarm for star-naming websites. Killing Vector (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Allow article to stand. Sorry I removed the notability tag being a newbie here. I did however talk about notability in the discussion page. Article immediately was tagged for deletion. Can we restore to notability tag and allow me to work on the article further? Look when talking about the star naming industry only one side of the argument gets advanced. This is the astronomers opinion of commercial star naming. there is no forum for the industry view point offering the other side. There is indeed a controversy. This is not an attempt to create a POV fork. It is attempt to remove bias and a lack of neutral point of view. You say "the rest is a link farm" for star naming sites; that is not true I have also included the astromoner POV with two other links (IAU and Cornell). Glennconti (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be mentioned explicitly that this user is in the star-naming business, as per WP:COI policy -- Rick Van Tassel user&#124;talk&#124;contribs 13:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge with star designation. The article cites sources to show the POV of each of the opposing sides, and it already has one source to demonstrate notability.  The self-published editorial is appropriate because it shows the opinion of one side of the argument.  There aren't yet any notable sources on the star-naming side, so it doesn't seem as much of a "controversy" but a disagreement. However, the disagreement seems to be valid, so I think the information should be moved into an article that already covers the topic deeply enough.  For instance, if the Creation–evolution controversy was covered once on the evolution side, it wouldn't be important enough to have its own article, but it would probably have a section in the Evolution article, just to show the existence of the disagreement.  -- Rick Van Tassel user&#124;talk&#124;contribs 13:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Remember to put your recommended course of action at the beginning of your post in bold, using strikethrough with if you change your mind.  See WP:AFD for more guidelines on the discussion. -- Rick Van Tassel user&#124;talk&#124;contribs 13:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There should be a general article about businesses like the International Star Registry that make money off of folks who seriously believe that a company has acquired the naming rights to the rest of the universe, whether it's called "controversy" or not. It's perfectly legal, but you'd have to be an idiot to believe that an astronomer would say, "We found a pulsar located near the star called 'Debbie'".  I'm not surprised that there are other entrepreneurs who have realized that there's one born every minute, but even the ISR, which some people believe owns the heavens, is categorized only under Category:Companies established in 1979 and Category: Companies based in Lake County, Illinois.  I wouldn't merge this with either star naming or star designation, although there should be a link within those articles.  Mandsford 21:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This AfD candidate article claims a false "controversy" in order to promote a marginally ethical business based on selling interests in items that do not belong to the business and for which no title or interest can legitimately be transferred (such as the Brooklyn Bridge), in addition, this business preys upon grieving family members that are often in no position to question the veracity of the claims made or rationally evaluate what is really being purchased. This con deserves a footnote in the Stars named after people article and no more (which it has). Aldebaran66 (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll withdraw my keep, although I think that there definitely does need to be a page about the subject, and I'm surprised that there isn't one, considering the widespread and longstanding practice of the "novelty" of a company naming stars. I think that the author has sincerely tried to write a balanced article, although the "rebuttal" is sourced to personal observations of the author himself, which essentially means that the statement is the personal observations of the author himself, the very essence of original research.  The proliferation of companies, of course, underscores the fact that anyone can sell a star to you.  Maybe they can work out a deal on dividing the nighttime sky into 12 sections.  Mandsford 16:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope Aldebaran's emotional plea to dead babies and ad hominem attack wasn't what made you change your decision to support the article Mandsford. I think the overriding principle here is NPOV at wikipedia.Glennconti (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We have star designation which discusses (briefly) the naming issue; we have stars named after people which also touches on the matter. I don't see any reason we need a third page on the topic in which to inflate it to the level of a "controversy". Redirect this title to star designation, discuss neutrally and in context there. Shimgray | talk | 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not just three. All of these articles mention the controversy with only the astronomer's opinion. They all need to be changed. Star designation, International Star Registry, Astronomical naming conventions, Stars named after people, Stars. Glennconti (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Many articles in WP call commercial star naming a fraud. My research indicates this is not the case. Commercial star naming is legal. Either opposing views need to be shown or the claims of fraud need to be removed. Glennconti (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge and reduce Delete The arguments are summarised in star designation, and it doesn't appear to be a major controversy - just an issue which annoys a few pedants. The style is like an argumentative essay, which is not ideal and Shimgray has a good point that that this issue is covered on too many pages.  But Glennconti is right that the star designation page appears POV - it should at least say why people name stars Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a major controversy. The number of stars commercially named since 1978 numbers in the millions.Glennconti (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I still can't see how that is a major controversy - The only victims are mildly irritated astronomers (and the odd person who doesn't read fine print). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This appears overblown and can be reduced to a few lines. Its would be the same as taxonomists objecting to common names of plants and animals - not really something they have any say in.
 * I whole heartedly agree with your point about taxonomists. However, some astronomers get very agitated when they feel there is an attempt to usurp their authority. The IAU in particular. Glennconti (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After further reading I believe this justifies no more than a line or two on the any of the pages - Astronomers may have an opinon, but thats not relevant. Facts are people sell names that are not scientifically recognised. Not worth its own page at all. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge with star designation after editing to address style and COI issues, as per Rick Van Tassel, Shimgray, and Clovis Sangrail. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge with star designation. It reads like journalism. Rothorpe (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment In a major victory for NPOV they just removed the astronomer's opinion that private star naming companies are frauds off the Star WP article. I argued that these were legal opinions and astronomer's opinions on law are not pertinent. This won the day. However, they now prefer to use the astronomer's opinion that private star naming companies were once "accused" of being "deplorable" without allowing any alternative opinion to be voiced. This was three days work and for my trouble I have been threatened again against speaking. Glennconti (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That was short lived. They have reverted all of my work on Star and are again calling private star naming companies a fraud. Oh well, hopefully I can get an impartial editor to pass judgment on at least this article. There needs to be some NPOV on this subject. Glennconti (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate, and I understand what you're getting at, but this discussion isn't about the star article. Please stay on topic. -- Rick Van Tassel user&#124;talk&#124;contribs 11:54, 24 June 2010 (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.