Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caelum Supercluster

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 List of superclusters#Distant superclusters. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Caelum Supercluster

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Caelum Supercluster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Almost no significant studies pertaining to this supercluster exists; the only real paper detailing this was the discovery paper and even then it was not the main subject; just one entry among others. The only notable thing about this is its supposed size and the figure of 910 million light-years cannot be traced to any source and might just be pulled out of thin air. SkyFlubbler (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of superclusters, where it is already posted. It has insufficient publications at this point to be notable, although that may change. Praemonitus (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - no discussion in sources, just a tag in a catalog. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of superclusters#Distant superclusters (at least), as mentionned above. Not enough publications and reliable references for this supercluster, thus probably fails at WP:NASTRO and not warrant to have its own article. Not to mention it is very likely the article was full of bogus information to begin with. To start of, I would argue that "910 million light-years" diameter was most likely more of just an entirely made-up size from some YouTube size comparison video, and was then errorously put in Wikipedia. As such, I will probably remove this value in the List of superclusters and I was considering doing the same in the List of largest cosmic structures. Meanwhile this source (which existed long before this page) considered this supercluster to be large and "probably" exist. Despite that, it was not put into the map as only one of its Abell clusters was known to have an estimated redshift listed in Struble and Rood's compilation of cluster redshifts, leaving Horologium-Reticulum Supercluster to be the largest supercluster in the map. For that matter, the highest end quoted distance (safe for the "lowest end" one) and the number of galaxies (and galaxies groups) were misleading too. This 1996 paper stated that SCI 059 has at least 11 rich galaxy cluster members, although another was stated to be a member too in this source. While that paper gives a lower distance of 298 Mpc or 971 Gly, I went to NED back in August, where it gives different redshift and distance estimates for Abell galaxy cluster members, with closest one being Abell 3289 at z = 0.076633 (336.6 Mpc or 1.10 Gly away) and farthest one being Abell 3307 at z = 0.15404 (678.5 Mpc or 2.21 Gly away). Assuming that both of these clusters were part of SCI 059, I thought this would give SCI 059 a diameter of 1.12 Gly, slightly larger than the 910 Mly bogus diameter. Though, I'm not sure if it should be used as it might be too much WP:OR, even if I do leave a note about where it came from. I also found a 2022 paper which consider SCI 059 as disk-shaped and give it a mass 4×10⁴⁷ (2×10¹⁷ M_☉) and a radius of 4.3×10²⁴ m (4.54×10⁹ ly), translating a diamater of 8.6×10²⁴ m (9.08×10⁹ ly). However as both of those values are (nearly) too similar to the ones used in Wikipedia and uncited for years, I'm not convinced that those values were calculated by a study and were just copy-pasted from Wikipedia instead, hence shouldn't be used. Lastly unfortunately about the bolometric luminosity in the infobox I can't find it in the quoted paper. Overall, it would be likely safe to say that this article deserves to be at best a redirect. There's currently no enough publications and information for this supercluster to have its own article. ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 17:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

References

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.