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

The only thing on the "reasons" for deletion is original research
All of the "reasoning" used is pure original research. I doubt there is anyone else interested in this, but hope springs eternal. The following is a quote, but where is the add quote button? I italicized it. But that didn't work either.

''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.''

Fxmastermind (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, '' "I hope this issue gets settled. I saw the talk page of this article with its creator lamenting about it." '' is a personal comment, no matter how you spin it. It's obviously a personal matter for this anonymous person wanting an article deleted. For the second time. 11:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I am using the talk page to discuss. The article page has no way to add a new section, and I have to edit the entire article each time, which is burdensome. And my counter to the original research would just be more original research. Fxmastermind (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Please reply at the proper AfD discussion, not on this talk page. Your points here would be addressed on that talk page. It is protocol to discuss this on a proper avenue, not on just anywhere you like.


 * Also, you don't have to add new sections at the discussion. Just add a colon ":" immediately before your replies. SkyFlubbler (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The main article here is ridiculous to try and converse with. It's beyond insipid.
I tried, but just trying to fix a typo one is faced with a wall of text and code and it's ridiculous. Fxmastermind (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand this is not "the place" to discuss the horrific interface and complete lack of social tools ...
so kindly point me in the right direction. Where is that discussion taking place? Fxmastermind (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

If even a fraction of the effort to delete was used to improve
The article would be even more awesome. I would put this comment on the main page here, but it requires editing a huge block of code and is a burden. Also, nobody has discussed or even answered any of my other responses.

Waste of time. Fxmastermind (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Sir, I would be more than happy to improve the article if it is indeed possible. That is what I do. I even resurrected an entire article: the List of largest galaxies, which has been plagued by misinformation and chaos for years, becoming a Mid-class list here in Wikipedia. That required hundreds of hours of research. If anything, out of every user here, I am the one who has the capability to revive this article.


 * So you are talking with someone who has a lot of experience about this. I don't want to boast you about my capabilities, but if I say something is not possible, it simply is not.


 * And this is what happens with "super galaxy". You have this notion that it would be improved in some way, leaving the task for other Wikipedians. I believe that not all articles are finished (as per Wikipedia policy) but every article should have a solid foundation, and comply with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. WP:NOTDONE doesn't say that you should create a half-baked, poorly-written and incomprehensible article.


 * Believe me when I say that not just me, but other users like User:Modest Genius have tried to find resources for this article. We did not find any. Any paper that we can find is either very old or just talking about another subject altogether. I am very sorry but this is what happens when you create articles without the necessary sources available.


 * If replying to the main page is too much task for you (I am using a mobile phone and I don't experience any problems with the interface), kindly reply here and I'll just copy it to the main discussion. Or just simply go to my talk page and discus it there. Thanks. SkyFlubbler (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Also of note: all the replies that you've made have been answered accordingly. I guess you should take time to read the responses. SkyFlubbler (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)