Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y Centauri

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y Centauri

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this article was incorrectly linked from List of stars in Centaurus, so I fixed it with this edit. If there was more notability (I could not find any) I would have suggested merging it to that list, even as a redlink. FWIW, its SIMBAD entry is here. -84user (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's nothing especially significant about this star and it fails to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what was wrong with the link from List of stars in Centaurus, and why isn't there a new link? As for WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG, there are three independent sources in the article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of stars in Centaurus used to have a link to y Centauri (magnitude 10 to 8.9), but all the properties in the table row were from HD 120987, a different, brighter, star of magnitude 5.53. I suppose a new entry could be added for this one, assuming it survives deletion. -84user (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally about "y Centauri" (HD 120987), until it was rebuilt to be about "Y Centauri" (HD 127233). If this is deleted, it should become a setindex article, like other Latin-letter Bayer designations. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title is still a valid redirect for HD 120987 ("y Centauri"), so if "Y Centauri" is not notable, we still have the article "y Centauri" ; and we have the confusing target "γ Centauri". So either this should be a redirect, or it should be a set index, if it isn't about the star. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a redirect, as that would imply to the readers that Y Centauri (this star) is the same star as HD 120987 (y Centauri), which it is not. A set index disambig page would be fine though. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is perfectly valid, y Centauri works. A set index is preferable, but the redirect is fine, since at the very most {{R from typo}} are common on Wikipedia, and it isn't a typo, since Wikipedia treats all first letters the same regardless of case. We even have a {{lower case}} to indicate iPod -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made this a separate article, because the redirect was very confusing and Wikipedia has trouble distinguishing between names that start with lower and upper case, as in this case they are different stars. Apart from being variable, the special feature of this star is the 22 GHz water masar emission. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than simple database entry; perfectly encyclopedic and clear-cut article with information gathered from multiple neutral, reliable sources, meets the spirit of our notability guidelines. --cyclopia^speak! 13:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How on earth is this more than a database article? To me, this appears to be the very definition of repeating a database entry as an article. Every single fact in this article could easily be found on an astronomy database such as SIMBAD with no further research necessary. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of variable stars. I just spent nearly about 30 minutes examining the given sources, plus another 38 provided by SIMBAD. Many (if not most) of the papers given by SIMBAD were "false readings" of the object in the papers. There's one paper (noted in the article) that provides a water maser detection using IRAS (an old infrared mission). That paper notes that no corroboration of that detection exists, unlike many of the others. In fact, many of the other sources list this object among dozens of others in searches for the water feature, and this was listed multiple times merely in "non-detection". There's nothing encyclopedic to build here as a stand alone article, but the information we have should be retained in the variable star list article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's what I'm finding as well with many of these single-letter variable designations; they are often getting misread from other stars such as the lowercase Bayer designations. I think it is probably worth having a footnote in WP:NASTRO explaining this when looking for sources; namely, that there are very often false positives. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes I found that too, and that confusion is why the article is there, as something to attach hat notes to. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - However, we don't keep articles just due to hatnote purposes. For that purpose, it would be possible to either make this page a Set Index article, or to eliminate this page altogether and make the hatnote at the top read something like: "this article is about the star 'y Centauri' (with a lowercase y)". StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What would this article look like if it was a {{Set index article}} and how would it help avoid the confusing conversion of lowercase y to uppercase Y? Would it be the same name with a list of two items, the first being HD 120987, the second being the non-articled star HD 127233? What would the hatnotes for the two other star articles be changed to? I'm trying to get a handle on which would be better: a redirect to HD 120987 (ie y Centauri), a setindex, or just keep it (exceptionally) to minimise confusion. -84user (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not paper was one of the founding concepts of Wikipedia. The mass deletions of astronomy articles is tantamount to a topic genocide. Fotaun (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HD 120987 (y Cen, notable as a visible star), and modify the hatnote there explaining the uppercase/lowercase confusion. Y Cen (the uppercase one) doesn't appear to be notable. With only two articles to choose from, one of which is non-notable, a hatnote seems a better solution than a disambiguation page or set index article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.