- 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 merge to NGC 4993. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
GRB 170817A
- GRB 170817A ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia does not need a page on each and every GRB. The only (current) claim to notability is the link with a rumoured gravitational wave detection. However, for the moment there exist no RSs for the GW event, let alone the potential link with this GRB. WP:TOOSOON. T R 21:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Merge with NGC 4993 article. I agree with WP:TOOSOON; WP:CRYSTAL probably also applies. If the GRB actually does represent a new type of gravity wave, then it would definitely deserve its own article, but until then it's probably best to just mention it on the galaxy's page. Cthomas3 ( talk) 22:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Thank you for the notice re the possible deletion of the " GRB 170817A" article and related - " GRB 170817A" is a confirmed event [1] - and seems to have been emitted from the " NGC 4993" galaxy - " GRB 170817A" may be related to a " gravitational wave" event (" GW170817"?), according to " WP:RSs" [2] [3] [4] - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 19:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Kienlin, Andreas von (17 August 2017). "GCN Circular; Number: 21520; GRB 170817A: Fermi GBM detection; 2017/08/17 20:00:07 GMT". Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics. Retrieved 31 August 2017.
- ^ Casttelvecchi, Davide (25 August 2017). "Rumours swell over new kind of gravitational-wave sighting". Nature. doi: 10.1038/nature.2017.22482. Retrieved 31 August 2017.
- ^ Drake, Nadia (25 August 2017). "Strange Stars Caught Wrinkling Spacetime? Get the Facts". National Geographic. Retrieved 31 August 2017.
- ^ Sokol, Joshua (25 August 2017). "What Happens When Two Neutron Stars Collide?". Wired. Retrieved 31 August 2017.
- I do not believe anyone is questioning the fact that it is a confirmed event; the question is if the event is notable. It may be, if in fact it actually is related to a gravitational wave event. The problem is that we don't actually know yet whether it is or it isn't, and I don't believe the event is notable enough for a standalone article if it isn't (GRBs are detected all the time). There is no scientific consensus about the event yet because it is so recent, and as such it is my opinion that should wait to create an article about it until there is such a consensus. Cthomas3 ( talk) 00:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Notability has nothing at all to do with whether this is a gravitational wave event, it has to do with whether there are suitable sources. And there are. Thincat ( talk) 01:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Passing news coverage (which is what the above sources are) is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG as per WP:NEWS. T R 07:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment One of my issues with this article (and the others I put up for AfD) is that they contain factual inaccuracies (don't ask how I know). However, without RSs these inaccuracies cannot be corrected, demonstrating a fundamental issue with the existence of this article. Lets wait with the creation of these articles until actual sources exist. T R 07:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm very interested in that because we should try hard to avoid that problem. If reliable sources are generally making false claims there is little that can be done and your concerns will be discounted as OR (even if wrongly so). However, if one (or so) reliable sources are outliers from the mainstream, or if not very reliable sources are being used for incorrect claims, then the article can be improved. However, because WP regards secondary sources as being preferable to primary these sorts of conflicts do tend to crop up with science topics. Why not raise the matter on the talk page?
Thincat (
talk)
07:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- The problem here is that the so-called "reliable sources" in this case are openly speculating, as such some the things they say are bound to be wrong. I would actually argue that because the source are speculating they should not be considered reliable (and most certainly not as secondary sources as their speculations are their own synthesis of the information that is currently in the public domain). The situation for these articles is just plain awkward for Wikipedia for as long as the results of the GRB follow up observations (and LIGO's O2 run) are under embargo. Until this is lifted the articles should probably simply not exists since stuff like
WP:N and
WP:V cannot be properly satisfied.
T
R
09:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL is policy, and says "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." You are correctly pointing out that this policy is not perfect. But we are expected to make decisions based on WP policy. So long as we are clearly relaying RS speculations as such, your objection is that policy is wrong. Take it up on the policy talk page, not here.
- The RS speculation is secondary sourcing. We have not looked at the primary sources (in this case, mostly logs of telescope time, also some tweets, but obviously no observations) and synthesized conclusions, we have let others do so.
- You are correct that until the insiders release definitive information, things are awkward for WP. That's just not relevant. See the essay
WP:FLAT.
129.68.81.110 (
talk)
14:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- The sources mentioned above are NOT "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in the field" but essentially news reports.
T
R
15:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Nature, Quanta magazine, New Scientist and National Geographic are reliable sources, quoting known experts. I know nothing about WIRED, Forbes, the Independent, the New York Post, or Popular Mechanics regarding their astronomy coverage, but their existence does indicate that interest regarding this event is higher than usual. Of course, the GCN circular is a primary source. 129.68.81.110 ( talk) 16:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- The sources mentioned above are NOT "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in the field" but essentially news reports.
T
R
15:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- The problem here is that the so-called "reliable sources" in this case are openly speculating, as such some the things they say are bound to be wrong. I would actually argue that because the source are speculating they should not be considered reliable (and most certainly not as secondary sources as their speculations are their own synthesis of the information that is currently in the public domain). The situation for these articles is just plain awkward for Wikipedia for as long as the results of the GRB follow up observations (and LIGO's O2 run) are under embargo. Until this is lifted the articles should probably simply not exists since stuff like
WP:N and
WP:V cannot be properly satisfied.
T
R
09:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm very interested in that because we should try hard to avoid that problem. If reliable sources are generally making false claims there is little that can be done and your concerns will be discounted as OR (even if wrongly so). However, if one (or so) reliable sources are outliers from the mainstream, or if not very reliable sources are being used for incorrect claims, then the article can be improved. However, because WP regards secondary sources as being preferable to primary these sorts of conflicts do tend to crop up with science topics. Why not raise the matter on the talk page?
Thincat (
talk)
07:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep likewise for GW170817. The possible GW candidate rumour got more than enough notice in the press to be notable. I've got no objections to a merge to NGC 4993 however. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I see WP:NEWS being linked above. The correct link is WP:NOTNEWS, which is policy, and it makes it perfectly clear that news is allowed, so long as it isn't routine news. This is not routine. Please restrict discussion to actual policy. 129.68.81.110 ( talk) 16:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete Unfortunately, the primary sources (the actual science reported by scientist) are NOT reporting on this topic, and secondary sources are reporting a rumor. Even if Wikipedia considers the secondary sources to be reliable, they are still reporting a rumor, which we have no way of verifying unless and until it is first reported in primary scientific source(s). The testing protocols are there for good reason: to identify "false" signals and avoid propagating misinformation. Wikipedia should not be in the business of spreading any rumors, let alone rumors of scientific fact, which have not yet been published (and might never be published) in scientific journals. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 17:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep Re "Wikipedia does not need a page on each and every GRB", that's not an argument for deletion, just an opinion, which I disagree with. They are sufficiently rare and generate a lot of scientific interest. This one seems more notable than others that have their own page, see List of gamma-ray bursts. Tayste ( edits) 22:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Per NASA: "A GRB is a fleeting blast of high-energy light, often lasting a minute or less, occurring somewhere in the sky every couple of days." (emphasis added) I would not call that sufficiently rare, and they don't all generate a lot of scientific interest unless there is something otherwise noteworthy about them. In the list you just mentioned, there are only 23 entries (with 3 redlinks); in the link I provided, it notes that the Swift spacecraft just found its 1000th almost two years ago. Note that every one on your list has something notable (first ever, closest, first with <x> characteristic, most energetic, etc.). Note also that none are "rumored to have been" anything. If the rumor turns out to be true, I am 100% in agreement that it is at least as, and in most cases far more, notable than those on the list. But if it isn't, it's simply not notable at all. And that's why the recommendation to wait on creating the article. Cthomas3 ( talk) 02:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough. Perhaps it ought to be merged into the galaxy article NGC 4993. Tayste ( edits) 03:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Merge with NGC 4993 per User:Cthomas3. Keira 1996 01:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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.