Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super galaxy (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Super galaxy
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I'll reiterate what the first deletion discussion of this page has reasoned out, but with more detail as I think I have better points for this.

1. The terminology "super galaxy" is used in early astronomy, but does so in a way that not what this article suggests. It refers to what we now know as separate galaxies being originally part of the Milky Way (proposed by Harlow Shapley) and this became obselete by the time we established that there are separate galaxies.

2. The definition that the article suggests – large galaxies – are never used in the astronomical literature to refer to such objects (except from just a few popular science press releases). A quick search at the Astrophysics Data System here yielded only 12 results; with the latest one using the term explicitly is from a paper by de Vaucouleurs in 1953 and more recent ones just search results where they refer to "super galaxy groups" i.e. post-merger groups, and not use them to refer to an individual galaxy.

I hope this issue gets settled. I saw the talk page of this article with its creator lamenting about it. But I am pretty sure I can make a solid discussion regarding this. SkyFlubbler (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Just of note: The first deletion discussion of this article is at Articles for deletion/Super Galaxy from 2008 (with an uppercase 'G'). SkyFlubbler (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

See talk page for my commentary, and why I use the talk page to discuss this. Fxmastermind (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The term has been used in many books. And I am talking about astronomy, not any of the other uses of the term. The deleter doesn't know this, and my showing this to be true would be original research. How ironic. Fxmastermind (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know this, sir. Which is why I am requesting to delete this page.


 * "The term has been used in many books" is not a valid argument for notability. As per the notability guideline: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention... Context is important here. The term is obsolete and the latest book that uses this terminology is from 1953; there have been no significant scientific papers that gained traction upon the astronomical community that used the words "super galaxy" to refer to a large galaxy. This defines the independence of the subject, as "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.


 * Like I've said before, we have a designation for large galaxies already: cD galaxies, brightest cluster galaxies and super post mergers (the latter used by P. Ogle in 2005). This is the designation that we should use. SkyFlubbler (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Another point to mention is what the proposed definition of "super galaxy" means:

"...is an astronomical term used either to describe giant galaxies, formed from multiple galaxies, or to describe superclusters of galaxies."


 * This is just absurd; these three are totally different objects. One is a giant galaxy (which is referred to as D or cD), the other is a post-merger (not all post-mergers are giants), and the last is a vast collection of multiple galaxy clusters defined by gravitational influence of a central attractor. You cannot just describe them all under the umbrella term of "super galaxy". SkyFlubbler (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Moving some of the comments by the page creator here, as he can't seem to follow instructions. From Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Super galaxy (2nd nomination):

"All of the "reasoning" used is pure original research."

Excuse me? I've just used the Astrophysics Data System, a repository of astrophysical journals by SAO/NASA. The phrase "super galaxy" only appeared in 12 papers, none of which refer to a large galaxy as the article suggests. My rebuttal does not constitute WP:OR as what he wants to imply, and as stated on the Wikipedia policy itself, original research is:

"...refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."

There is overwhelming lack of evidence of its use in the astronomical literature, and the details pointed in the article are just a gross misrepresentation of what the sources actually imply. SkyFlubbler (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC) Fxmastermind (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This AfD was malformed and has been fixed. it was wholly incorrect to plce the entire header in subscript markup. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 21:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * " it was wholly incorrect to plce the entire header in subscript markup"
 * I literally have no idea what you are trying say. Is there a typo there?  Assuming you meant PLACE rather than pIce, it's still difficult to parse the meaning.Fxmastermind (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. This term is not in regular or general use in scientific literature and WP should not have an article on this topic. Aldebarium (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Why is there no discussion of this?  Just saying something does not make it true.Fxmastermind (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 21:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to be a flavor of WP:NEOLOGISM, but it really just boils down to not being a term used in reliable sources to the degree that the term would qualify for an article. KoA (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is definitely not a term used in the literature. The article appears to be one editor's sandbox. Delete with prejudice. - Parejkoj (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand there is no penalty for being wrong here, or making up things, but to argue by blanket statement, with no evidence, that isn't really an argument.
 * I understand there is no penalty for being wrong here, or making up things, but to argue by blanket statement, with no evidence, that isn't really an argument.
 * Delete Search results are for the C-5M Super Galaxy or to various video game and creative arts topics, including results related to Super Mario Galaxy. The dab page Supergalaxy should then be moved onto this title, as all the entries have a space. –Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 01:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There must be a way to edit this with out using the entire page. This is an absurdism. Fxmastermind (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The claim made above, "The term is obsolete and the latest book that uses this terminology is from 1953" is patent nonsense. Aside from the stark fact that the dictionary definition of supergalaxy matches the article definition, the term is used in hundreds of publications, scientific books and articles. A search gets confusing because the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy is referred to as the Supergalaxy, which is noted on the article Supergalaxy.

There is a vast amount of literature that used the term as defined in the astronomical sense.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22supergalaxy%22&tbm=bks&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1960,cd_max:1981&lr=lang_en

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22supergalaxy%22&tbm=bks&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1982,cd_max:2019&lr=lang_en

That nobody here knows this, or has done a search, is frankly not surprising. (I don't know if those naked urls will work here or not.)

The biggest bugaboo is the multitude of ways it has been used, over a long period of time. Something an encyclopedic entry would explain in detail. And the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergalaxy does just that. It explains a multitude of uses, past and present, for the term supergalaxy, (super galaxy) and very rarely super-galaxy. And none these include the aircraft or the games or the bicycle.

It's both amusing and appalling to see such blatant ignorance parading as sage wisdom. Fxmastermind (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Of course my ignorance of the editing protocols, the obscure code used, and a complete lake of understanding of whatever strange mores are at work here, leaves me with no room to talk down to anyone, so let us not reach a misunderstanding of what is at stake here. Fxmastermind (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: "... the term is used in hundreds of publications, scientific books and articles."


 * We have already established that there are only 12 extant papers that use this terminology in the Astrophysics Data System (see here), and not everyone of them even use "super galaxy" to refer to a large galaxy. I don't know where on Earth are the "hundreds of publications" are you talking about. So the statement that "There is a vast amount of literature that used the term as defined in the astronomical sense." is just simply false. In addition, Google searches are not a standard for this article to exist. It should fulfill Wikipedia's notability criteria.


 * "The biggest bugaboo is the multitude of ways it has been used, over a long period of time."


 * It is not the job of Wikipedia to point out the usage of a word over time, and treat it that this was sufficient enough to make its own article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (see WP:NOT).


 * "It's both amusing and appalling to see such blatant ignorance parading as sage wisdom."


 * Please, sir, to accuse anyone here of being ignorant and treating yourself in such high pedestal is an inappropriate behavior for an editor. This matter has already been brought to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy and members of that project (including myself) specialize in topics like these. In this case, mere mentions of "super galaxy" in Google searches are not enough; there must be a widespread, independent usage among professional astronomers of "super galaxy." There have been very little usage of it, and this is simply not enough for it to exist as an article. SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * A quick search at arXiv on the term "super galaxy" (see https://search.arxiv.org/?query=%22super+galaxy%22&in=physics&qid=1663690552556ler_nCnN_1505998205&startat=20 ) just gave me 34 results, and 90% of them just show up because they refer to "super galaxy group" or "super galaxy cluster" (i.e. Galaxy clusters and Superclusters) and not "super galaxy" to refer to a large galaxy. SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete not a widely used term. Supposed uses of the term are referring to other subjects like galaxy clusters. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article conflates the early 20th century concept of 'supergalaxy', which is long obsolete, with recent discoveries of simply large galaxies (we already have articles on cD galaxy, brightest cluster galaxy, and list of largest galaxies). Just because a press release used the term 'super galaxy' doesn't mean it's a real category. This term is not in common use in professional astronomy; every hit I could find on NASA ADS for 21st century papers was referring to superclusters, galaxy groups or the supergalactic plane instead. There are precisely zero incoming links from mainspace, which for an article that has been around since 2008 is telling in itself. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In 2008 an editor went and changed articles to remove the term super galaxy, and supergalaxy, from Wikipedia. because they were arguing against including an article called super galaxy (or supergalaxy, or super-galaxy). The literally searched all astronomy articles that had the term and deleted the term from them.   Fxmastermind (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

This absurd non discussion is absurd. Seriously. The original research is absurd. Just because somebody here claims --> " Just because a press release used the term 'super galaxy' doesn't mean it's a real category. This term is not in common use in professional astronomy"

--> does not make it true.

What is true, is that the term is used many times.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19870014829/downloads/19870014829.pdf

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1575.html

https://nightsky.jpl.nasa.gov/news-display.cfm?News_ID=963

https://nasa.tumblr.com/post/187921705234/hubbles-5-weirdest-black-hole-discoveries?linkId=74189911&linkId=74320629&linkId=77930653

You can claim all you want "it is not used", and refuse to look at those links. And then you can delete the article, but that is just pure ignorance at work here.

in 2008 I linked to a vast number of papers and official NASA sites using the term, and it litteraly didn't matter. Wikipedia editors know more than NASA. Which is the most blatant original research possible here. Fxmastermind (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: "This absurd non discussion is absurd. Seriously.  The original research is absurd. Just because somebody her claims... does not make it true." What is true, is that the term is used many times.


 * I don't think you get his point. Just because it is in a press release does not make it an official terminology used by professional astronomers. It is the same case as "ultramassive black holes" which saw very little use outside of press releases.


 * Like I've stated above, per the Notability guidelines:

"'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent."


 * Going back to your links, the first link is about the X-ray background, and it mentions "super galaxy group". This is not the same as a super galaxy. The other link uses a variant form " super-galaxy", which again, does not mean anything but just a press release caption.


 * "in 2008 I linked to a vast number of papers and official NASA sites using the term, and it litteraly didn't matter. Wikipedia editors know more than NASA.  Which is the most blatant original research possible here."


 * I checked the links you've given from the first discussion, but all that we can find are press releases and no hints of "super galaxy" actually used on a professional level paper which makes it a category. This does not advance your claim, and like I've said, notability is more that mere mentions or usages of the word. SkyFlubbler (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.