Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Galaxy


 * 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 supergalaxy as likely search term for different targets. There seems to be good consensus that the use of the term "Super Galaxy" as presented in this article is largely inappropriate for a standalone entry, but there are also reasoned arguments that some of the content may be appropriate in use elsewhere. The edit history is preserved so that merging of material can be performed as needed. Shereth 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Super Galaxy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. 'Super Galaxy' is not an established term in astronomy and has no well-defined meaning. For example, while the popular news articles linked in the article agree with - and appear to be the source of - the definition given (a large galaxy), the peer-reviewed papers - which were added recently - are mostly old works and use the term in a completely different context (as a description of large-scale structure in the local universe, outside of our Galaxy). Neither definition is widely used in astronomy today. Cosmo0 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   —Cosmo0 (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   —Cosmo0 (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's say you are correct, and the term "super galaxy" is not an established term, or it is a term that has changed meaning over time. Rather than delete the article, that information could be added to the page, increasing the amount of information available through wikipedia.  Of course this places the burden on you, because now you have to provide sources to support your claim, that "Neither definition is widely used in astronomy today."

If you can support that claim, (it may be true, I don't know), then that information is added to the article. If the term "super galaxy" has no well defined meaning, as you say, then that information is added to the article.

So now, rather than the simple "lets delete something", we have an article that informs the curious reader that this phrase has been used in various ways, that the meaning seems to have changed over time, and that currently it is not clear what it means.

That is called knowledge, where rather than finding "no entry", somebody looking up "super galaxy" finds information, not a blank page.

Then there is the other issue, that "super galaxy" is currently being used as shorthand, to describe the C-5M Super Galaxy - the US Air Force's leading cargo aircraft.

Which I was aware of when I created the page. I don't know how to make one of those multiple meaning pages.

But by all means, I understand how easy it is to delete stuff. It takes effort to create and edit entries. Deleting is quick and easy.

But reality is decided by consensus, so I'm sure that the wikiality of the issue will win out. (insert laugh emoticon here, so everybody knows I am joking)

I've never watched a deletion discussion before. How long can you wait before you push the delete button? Is there a hurry? Is this an important issue? Where are the rules regarding such a pressing issue? Thanks. FX (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article as it currently exists does little more than provide a definition of the term, and several sources of information that provide mention of the term in passing.  If there is something out there that can better explain the theory here, I'd be compelled to change my mind, but with items in passing and off-hand remarks about super galaxies, there's not much to work on.  FX, your arguments are compelling, but you really need to provide more info and flesh the article out if it is going to stand a chance, rather than packing the AfD here full of discussion. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:OR is not a reason to keep --T-rex 23:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

FX's very long comment

 * Arguments?

"FX, your arguments are compelling, but you really need to provide more info and flesh the article out if it is going to stand a chance"

I was unaware that argument and debate were required for articles in WIKIPEDIA. I also read that one should leave things unfinished, so that others could take part in creating and editing articles. The thought that people who know nothing about a subject, who won't read sources, or do any research, should have a say in creating an article, or worse, in trying to delete it, is hilarious.

It is one of the things people who make fun of WIKIPEDIA point out. That reality should be decided by a vote, rather than science, research, and evidence.

The criteria for an article is verifiability, evidence, good sources, published articles, credible information, yadda yadda yadda

If this is so, then the criteria for deleting an article should be far higher. Right?

"The article as it currently exists does little more than provide a definition of the term, and several sources of information that provide mention of the term in passing."

True. It is the start of an article. I had hoped there were other people interested in astronomy, who might add to the page. Of course this may take some time. And effort. To find people wanting to delete the page, to argue the term "super galaxy" doesn't exist, is so absurd I think it must be a prank.

Nobody can be that petty, that small minded and ignorant. It must be a joke, somebody is bored, looking for a little fun. I find it funny in the extreme.

Of course, if it isn't a joke, (say it is, please), then the massive amount of evidence and the history of the term must be presented.

And yet, if this isn't a joke, and people who know nothing about a subject have the power to not just vandalize a page, but delete it entirely, then why bother? That would make WIKIPEDIA a joke, and not worth bothering with.

And all the references to super galaxies that already exist will have to be purged.

Like - Then there are super galaxy clusters which are hundreds of galaxies merged together due to cosmic collisions. from this page, episode 16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episode_list_of_The_Universe_%28TV_series%29#Season_Two_Episodes

And "The nuclei of the two galaxies are joining to become one Super Galaxy." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antennae_galaxies

I could go on and on. Then there are the print articles I linked to on the page, which show some of the history of the term. Including the award given to de Vaucouleurs, who was published in The Astronomical Journal, 1953, for his theory and discovery 20 years before anyone else. (This information is in the references provided)

Or the theory by Shapely, The Super Galaxy Hypothesis (1930) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1930HarCi.350....1S

The term is used in Applied Mathematics and Computation Volume 139, Issue 1, 1 July 2003, Pages 23-36 By E.E Escultura, in his article The flux theory of gravitation XVIII: macro and quantum gravity, cosmo waves and applications

It is used here Deconvolution in High-Energy Astrophysics: Science, Instrumentation, and Methods (2004)

The bright blue spot in the center of the image is due to X-ray emission from hot gas falling into a giant black hole at the center of the super galaxy, Perseus A. http://ba.stat.cmu.edu/journal/2006/vol01/issue02/issue02.pdf#page=2

I could go on and on of course.

The term is used by NASA, in Science, in Nature, in Astronomy, etc etc

examples:

measurable structure arisingfrom the local supergalaxy. .... of the local supergalaxy it is expected that the background increases by an ... http://nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670029045_1967029045.pdf

The role of galaxy destruction by merging, leading to a new supergalaxy, has been underappreciated until recently. http://gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/A4.html

Title: The local supergalaxy as the structured aspect of a universal background of ... Abstract: Local supergalaxy as structured aspect of X-ray background ... http://rst.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=505925&id=4&qs=N%3D4294936922%26Ns%3DHarvestDate%7C1

hypothetical Local supergalaxy. In the field of the theory of cosmic ray ..... Local supergalaxy. A. http://rst.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670024503_1967024503.pdf

"local supergalaxy" is likely. to. be anisotropic in X-rays as well... http://rst.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780013097_1978013097.pdf

They even have a picture of one here:

This X-ray image shows a central radiating mass (an elliptical supergalaxy that resulted from merger of multiple galaxies) and a huge cloud of glowing hot gas that is interpreted as under direct control by this Dark Matter, which is estimated to be equivalent to a hundred trillion times the mass of the Sun. http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/A9.html

But does it matter? If somebody with no knowledge of something can delete it, what is the point? Just delete anything you don't understand, or know anything about. Let me know how that works out for you.

Now if you just want more information, a longer article, more references, that is another story. What is it you want?

And in what Universe do imagine reality is decided by vote?

Don't worry, the laugh this gave me means it is all good.FX (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * one more thing

If you really want a better article, putting something on the delete list is about as bad a way to go about getting one, that you could possibly come up with. No kidding. I can show you a hundred articles that have false information, no sources, or terrible writing. None of them are on the deletion list.

I'm not sure if it appears anywhere on WIKIPEDIA guidelines or suggestion, but it should. Assume good will

If you don't know what that means, I feel sorry for you. It comes from the well, and it is important.FX (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete the usage in the article does not match most of the references. Most of the references refer to galaxy clusters and super clusters. The "super galaxy cluster" refers to a galaxy supercluster, which is an entirely different term, and which "super" is prefixed to "galaxy cluster", and NOT where "cluster" is addended to "super galaxy", so is etymologically wrong. The elliptical super galaxy is more commonly referred to as a giant galaxy or giant elliptical, which is of a type gE, cD or D. An argument can be made to have a redirect to the C-5 variant, after deletion. 70.51.8.167 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to C-5M Super Galaxy as a viable search term (if the AfD consensus is delete). Or create a DAB page that shows that the term is sometimes used (in error or not) to describe Super Clusters or very large galaxies. In the meantime although AfD shouldn't be used as a means to clean-up an article, cleaning up said article while under discussion is very much allowed and I'd suggest placing an tag to draw those with more astronomy experience and knowledge into improving the article. FX please take note that most of the people on this project work in good faith to improve the project and include information when it meets the policies and guidelines of the project. I encourage you to have a look at the help pages and familiarise yourself if some of them (they helped me afterall and that is no easy task). As far as creating a DAB page use an already existing one as a base and go from there. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jasynnash2. I was adding a comment at the same time as you (see below). What does AfD consensus mean? What is a DAB page? What is AfD? Between the jargon, and the wiki software, I'm pretty sure there is some major miscommunication going on. I don't understand half of what some people are trying to say. And while articles require an extreme level of documentation, it seems opinions don't require any at all. That seems to be a terrible oversight.FX (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Start by clicking on Help. It's in the interation box on the left. They have a Frequently Asked Question Section as well as a number of other topics quite plainly listed. I agree it isn't all organised to the best effect but, taking the time to look around never hurts. DAB is short for (a word I can't ever spell correctly) which means the sort of page that lists things (like you asked about above somewhere). AfD consensus simply means consensus at the Articles for Deletion page. We discuss things here based as much as possible on the policies and guidelines which are readily available (again check out the help pages -or- read some of the things that people have already linked to above). Want more help in understanding and finding things than ask people politely in the appropriate places and the majority of the users on here will be glad to point you in the right direction. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note of interest

Added more references and information to article. FX (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't much of a discussion when nobody responds to the points raised. I did note some high level vandalism of the page in question. What do these sort of wikiality discussions get, in user participation? 4 or 5 votes?

Where is the voting system? Is it a secret ballot? How are the votes verified?

This is a game, right? You can't be serious. FX (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for using the header here, I just realized how that works, and why it screws things up on this kind of page. I don't think long term users of wikipedia have any idea how confusing it is, or how much wikijargon is used, that makes no sense at all. And worse, there are no entries for the jargon, making it almost impossible to understand what some people are trying to say.FX (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion

 * FX, for what it's worth, this isn't a vote, as such - we basically bring this to consensus as to whether it should be kept or not, and if we can't reach one, we typically default to keep. In answer to the particular question, in this context, yeah, debate and discussion comes around - it's how we come to a conclusion.  For a deletion discussion, I highly recommend you give WP:AFD a good read. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep on the basis of the material added to the article and discussed here by FX. I am however not clear whether the standard form is with one word, or two--to be discussed late on the talk page and moved if necessary. We should not hold against him the lack of initial knowledge of the conventions we have here for doing things. We might rather learn how to explain ourselves better. DGG (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * From Google Scholar, the term is most used before the mid-70's, mostly in the 1930's. The majority of instances, "super galaxy" is synonymous with supercluster or galaxy cluster. And much of the remaining refers to a system of central galaxy with satellite galaxies, which is not the mega-sized galaxy that FX refers to (it could be he means brightest cluster galaxy...) 70.55.84.115 (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, as far as I can tell, the only consistent use of the term is to describe the system of galaxies around our own Galaxy - a usage that seems to have been started by Harlow Shapley, who believed that the entire Universe was a single galaxy (dubbed the Super Galaxy after it became clear that it extended beyond the main body of the Milky Way). In any case, it's an obselete usage that survives only in the term Supergalactic plane (which no longer has an associated noun 'Supergalaxy').  It has occasionally been used in the literature to described individual clusters of galaxies (e.g. Rood & Sastry 1971) but not in a systematic way.  As for the standard form: there is none, because it is not a standard term.  It's an ad hoc creation used to describe various individual objects that are in some way 'more/bigger than just a galaxy'.  Many of the links in the article relate to galaxy mergers but, as is made clear in the links and in the Galaxy formation and evolution article, most large galaxies are the result of mergers and so there is no need for a special term to describe them.  Cosmo0 (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (redirect, see below), per Comso0, because the term is, in a scientific context, obsolete; as the article states, de Vaucouleurs originally used it in 1956 before renaming the concept the local supercluster. Also, the external link references that I've checked are all either not reliable sources (e.g. personal web pages hosted by institutions such as NASA or Cornell, but cited as if they were official NASA or Cornell content) or don't even contain the term "super galaxy" or "supergalaxy". In fact, I see no modern, reliable sources that use the term. ASHill (talk &#124; contribs) 15:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, for example, this reference (which is cited in the article, as of now) uses the term 'super galaxy' in the headline but not in the story itself. That seems like a headline writer's description of the article, not a recognized astronomical term. ASHill (talk &#124; contribs) 16:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep based on DGG's arguments above. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the reasoned input.
I now know more about the term "super galaxy" than I ever thought possible. I agree with the one comment from 70.51.8.167, on the supergalaxy:talk page, "This is wikipedia, it should be super galaxy, not Super Galaxy, according to wikipedia naming conventions."

Isn't that a valid point? The article should be deleted on those grounds alone. Or better yet, redirected to super galaxy, which is either a historical article, noting the different uses in the past, which would include references to several historic astronomers, as well as links to other modern terms, or a redirect to a list of astronomical terms no longer used. That a term is used in several ways, and the meaning has changed, are both part of our human knowledge.

I also found in wikipedia guidelines that articles should be fit to print, which would be another reason to roll the definition and history of the term into one page of definitions, rather than taking up a lot of space for one term like that. The history of astronomy is replete with terms that changed, and are no longer in common use, as we discovered more about them. It's funny, but some of them are still in use, even though they are wrong.

In even more irony, the online encyclopedias/dictionaries that include the word wikiality, use the example of scientist deciding by consensus that Pluto is no longer a planet, as an example of wikiality in the real world. Which is hilarious in this context. What the term 'super-galaxy' means is being decided by discussion. Well, actually that isn't quite true. The talk page for the article is the place to decide that. But rather than use that talk page, or discuss the term, somebody decided it had to be deleted. Leading to this discussion.

Which is against the guidelines for deletions, according to the Adf pages.

Discussions about an article are to be done on the talk page of an article. This has not been done.

Unlike an article, requesting a deletion does not require any sources, references or publications to back it up. As witnessed by this conversation.

Most of the reasons for deletion actually add to the information about the term, rather than explain why there should be no entry at all.

But enough. I already voted for deletion, with the caveats included.

Notes on supergalaxy. While researching this I discovered the term can mean a biclycle Dawessupergalaxy http://www.dawescycles.com/dawes/super-galaxy.htm, a video game Super Galaxy Invader by Bandai, a movie theater, galaxy theaters calls their large theaters super galaxies, the C5 transport of course, as well as a very large galaxy, created by multiple galaxies merging "More information about the central interior of this developing supergalaxy, and about regions of active star formation appears in this image:" http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/A4.html

And of course I also learned why WIKIPEDIA works like it does. FX (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergalaxy

Wow. Now I know even more. A sewing machine? Who knew? The short description that leads to the article in question, actually does a pretty good job of summing it up. FX (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to build a list of definitions, you are looking for wiktionary. try super galaxy. 70.55.88.44 (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the entry for Galaxy would be two sentences long. FX (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect: The fact that the term is used for all those uses unrelated to the alleged astronomical term does not strengthen the case against deletion, in my opinion. In fact, the widely ranging usage is evidence that the term super galaxy has no specific meaning that can be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I think that the supergalaxy page (a disambiguation) is more appropriate, with the scientific content regarding large galaxies in galaxy. Therefore, I change my preference to redirect to supergalaxy. ASHill (talk &#124; contribs) 21:36, 16 June 2008 (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.