Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of brightest stars by distance

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=List of brightest stars by distance}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=List of brightest stars by distance}})

No evidence that this specific type of ranking has received any attention, fails WP:NLIST. Fram (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Fram (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Newly created list, actively under development, weak deletion rationale (did you search for any?), and nominator already attempted to PROD in violation of {{tq|PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected.}}. Jclemens (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :By that reasoning, you may just abolish Prod. My reasoning might have convinced the creator, in which case this was an uncontroversial Prod. You never know upfront. "Newly created list, actively under development" is not a keep reason, if there are no sources about the subject. And yes, I did search. Do you have any non-weak reasons to keep, actually? Fram (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::You're absolutely welcome to try and change PROD, rather than using it in a manner that is outside its current scope. If someone's added content to an article in the last 24 hours, that's pretty much SKYISBLUE evidence that that user would object to the article being deleted.
• ::And yes, being in progress is absolutely a reason to not bring something to AfD until it's fully taken shape. "Brightest stars by distance" is not an obviously non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, so we're not clearly saving someone pointless effort. Since you didn't find anything, I'd be interested in what you did for a BEFORE search; I would find it odd if this concept is mentioned nowhere--I think it much more likely to have been mentioned with differing phraseology. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Feel free to try different phraseology and then berate me for not using the one you eventually have some success with, if that happens. There is no need to change Prod or how I approach it. Fram (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I agree there's no need to change PROD. You have now been reminded, politely, that what you just did with it violated community expectations. If you believe it should be OK to PROD articles people are working on, then you should seek to modify how PROD reads, because if you continued to use it like that it could be construed as TE. Better to just go straight to AfD if you're 1) sure that something should not have an article, and 2) other people are actively editing/expanding it. In this particular case, a BLAR to List of brightest stars, which is already sortable by distance, would also have been an option, since there's no prohibition against trying it when other people might object. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Keep I think making two list in the article based on first one based on brightness and second one based on distance and brightness in the List of brightest stars by merging both article or developing it as a standalone article like it is now and expending it. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Live and let live. Maybe someone besides me (the one who started the article) will wonder what the brightest star is beyone Sirius, and then what the brightest star is beyond that. I wanted to know, I didn't find a list on Wikipedia, so I made one. {{U|Laura240406}} seems to appreciate it, because she did a lot of work on it. I don't think you can prove that no one has ever paid attention to this ranking! And I think the policy that everything should be deleted unless someone proves that it has been mentioned in the "literature" is a bad policy. I don't see why people insist of enforcing it. Articles should be kept if there are people who find them interesting. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Yeah, you are right Eric Kvaalen. I can't understand why Fram is interested in Afd, i can't understand is he misusing the feature. I can't understand what is problem in making article that are same but tell a different thing about the topic in a very different way and i can't understand why he is doing Afd in just 24 hours or even one two hours or less after the uploading of the article. This is a literal misuse of the Afd feature. I think talking with the user who created the article should be the first priority and then give atleast one or two week time or giving how much time the creator has asked for to improve is the way of doing things. Everyone here is for improving each others articles not putting Afd on each other articles like what Fram is repeatedly doing. I had already seen Afd on my many articles and some are kind of reasonable for Afd but others like List of B-type Stars, Extending the list of stars to atleast 800ly or even 1,000 ly are not by any means. My B-type Stars article was deleted because why? The reason was that a category was for B-type Stars was there but it doesn't include those many B-type stars that doesn't have it's own article and that was the reason i created but due to the probable misuse of the Afd Feature, It was deleted at the end and i doesn't had time to rescue beacause of my some exam related things and i doesn't have time like Fram to put article on Afd and create problems for the creator.

:I think some kind of rules should be establish on giving time to users and knowing there reason and giving time to improve it, if the creator has improved the no need of Afd and if not then the user should be free for discussion of an Afd. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Duplicate vote struck 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep This article even has good reference. I nowadays fear to create good articles like before or improve article because of this quick putting of Afd features like what Fram is doing. I can't understand why he is unnecessarily creating problems for creators before the list has completed.

:Yes, If the user has created something and left the article alone with no update from other users or creator for months. Then it could be a candidate for an Afd. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have added some basic rules that should be followed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Things to be done before doing an Afd.

::These basic rules should be followed before doing an Afd or anything like that. Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Idea Infact i am wanting to make a separate list for Giant, Supergiant and Hypergiant Stars, but is in doubt that this guy Fram will probably again do unnecessary drama and at the end will destroy my hard works by misusing the Afd feature like what he want to do with yours article. That is why i am not creating the respective article as of now. Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I think that's a good idea. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Triplicate vote struck 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I doubt on Giants stars but probably a separate list is needed for Supergiant and Hypergiant stars atleast. Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: the rationale for this list escapes me. We already have list of brightest stars and List of most luminous stars. This just appears to be an odd conglomeration of the two criteria, hence failing WP:NLIST. How would one even search for such a list? Praemonitus (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :See my reply to Parejkoj below. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: A similar, though not identical, list was deleted in the past. SevenSpheres (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• : I thought of making that as well. But I can't find enough information. All I know is that the most luminous star closer than Sirius is Alpha Centauri, and Sirius is the most luminous less than or equal to its distance. Beyond that I don't have enough information. I wish the article you mention had not been deleted. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Delete: Also not clear to me what the point of this list is. Is there any secondary coverage of this type of ordering of stars? I'm only saying "weak" because this at least is not the kind of list that really needs to be curated once its made (unlike e.g. "list of quasars", which has some dubious entries). - Parejkoj (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The point of the list is to show what might be called the record-breaking stars -- the ones that are the brightest beyond a given distance. I was wondering what far-away stars I could see, so I asked this question. What I found is that Deneb is very far away, even though it's one of the bright stars. I don't know what the brightest star is further than Deneb. I do know that Eta Carina is the brightest of all the stars that are as far as it or further. These facts are not things you can find or find easily from the list of brightest stars. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :: You've basically made a discrete distribution that forms an envelope representing peak brightness by distance. It doesn't really tell the reader anything about the stars as a whole. It sounds like novel OR to me, and I'm missing where you demonstrate that it passes WP:NLIST. Yes it's possible to make up all kinds of record-breaking star lists. Maybe it belongs on an astronomy web site somewhere as a curiosity, but I don't agree that it belongs on Wikipedia. Praemonitus (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per the previous AFD. I don't see evidence that this topic is notable and that it's anything other than Wikipedia editors engaging in WP:OR, making lists for the sake of making lists with unending statistical combinations. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :That's rather insulting. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::No it's not. {{tq2|The point of the list is to show what might be called the record-breaking stars -- the ones that are the brightest beyond a given distance. I was wondering what far-away stars I could see, so I asked this question. What I found is that Deneb is very far away, even though it's one of the bright stars. I don't know what the brightest star is further than Deneb. I do know that Eta Carina is the brightest of all the stars that are as far as it or further. These facts are not things you can find or find easily from the list of brightest stars.}} Can you explain how this is not OR, instead of feigning such grievous insult? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I mean it's insulting to say that I'm making lists for the sake of making list, with unending statistical combinations. As though you didn't understand what I wrote. As for "original research", I object to the idea that we can't use our heads. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of brightest stars or delete. The inclusion criteria of this list, if they can be called that, seem to hinge entirely on SYNTH to an inappropriate degree. I have seen no sources to indicate that this list meets NLIST, which is a very low bar. @Eric Kvaalen, do you have an independent reliable source that discusses this topic as a group or set? Toadspike [Talk] 12:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :(Noting, in case it matters, that I find the topic of this list somewhat interesting, but that finding it interesting is not a valid reason to ignore notability guidelines.) Toadspike [Talk] 12:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I think we should ignore "notability guidelines" in favor of interesting things. Why do people go around looking for things that are not notable enough (as defined by having references proving that it's notable) and deleting them, even though other people find them interesting? It doesn't make Wikipedia any better! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_brightest_stars#Table seems reasonable and even has a table with distances. Has a sorting feature that can go from ascending/descending distances. Not sure why this other list article was created. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :But the List of brightest stars doesn't answer the question that this answers. I did use it, but had to use my head as well (oh no!). I also had to use List of most luminous stars. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. Since it's come up late, I'd specifically oppose a redirect since the proposed target doesn't attempt to classify stars this way, so it's both implausible and misleading. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of brightest stars#Table as stated above, as a reasonable compromise Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :That's not a compromise, reasonable or not, since the target doesn't contain the information that's in the article up for deletion. And it's also just misleading as a redirect on its own, since there's nothing like that in the proposed target anyway. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to table as suggested above. -- Avocado (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{ec}} See immediately above. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.