Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDSS J140821.67+025733.2

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. While there was some suggestion of a possible merge, in this instance the consensus strongly favors outright deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SDSS J140821.67+025733.2[edit]

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

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

AfD as suggested in declined PROD comment. I haven't followed this in detail but it appears to fail WP:NASTRO. I couldn't find any non-trivial coverage, only catalogue entries. Simbad lists only 16 papers mentioning it at all, which is pretty scanty. Lithopsian (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. Satisfies GNG due to significant coverage in 16 sources in SIMBAD and 33 sources in NED. Plus which, this happens to have a very large mass. James500 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entries in catalogs are not by themselves notable. Is there anything beyond the basic numbers that go into a catalog (location, magnitude, size)? Tarl N. (discuss) 23:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I've gone through and thoroughly checked all of the sixteen supposed sources, and I can confirm that these are all merely listings in catalogues containing tens or hundreds of thousands of objects each. Not one source mentions this one specifically in the text. This is a textbook example of why you need to check your references before exclaiming how many there are, because not one of these is useful. Not notable. Reyk _YO! 07:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I did check them. (2) I have no problem with the (extensive) information contained in 'catalogues'. 'Catalogues' are good. I have no problem with the photograph in NED either. James500 (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: at present there is no "substantial" coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. If that changes in the future, the page can be restored from the deletion archive. Praemonitus (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, complete fail of WP:NASTRO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of most massive black holes, the only article in the Main namespace to link to this one. I navigated to this article from the list; as the largest known black hole, the article's information is interesting in this context. If this article gets deleted, the information in its lead section should be moved to the list page/table, or somewhere else where people would be likely to view it. Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mooseandbruce1. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above; top supermassive status makes it desirable that at least some information be provided, and a couple of lines in the list should cover that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, object fails WP:NASTRO. The black hole mass estimate is almost certainly spurious, this is an oddball quasar with a weird spectrum and the usual methods to get rough estimates of black hole masses probably don't work well for an object like this. Note that Kozlowski did not even mention this object in the text of his paper. Presumably if the author had thought it was noteworthy to find a BH with mass 10 times bigger than any previously known from direct dynamical measurement, he would have mentioned that fact in the paper. Instead, this is probably just a case of an automated measurement and mass estimate going wrong and giving a spurious outlier result. As such, this doesn't really even belong in the list of largest known black holes. This is not a reliably measured mass and shouldn't be treated as though it was. Aldebarium (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NASTRO. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:48, 6 July 2018 (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.