Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDSS J1408+0257 (2nd nomination)

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SDSS J1408+0257

[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)

A similar article was deleted under a slightly different name in June 2018 (SDSS J140821.67+025733.2, which is now a re-direct to this article). Since then, nothing has changed: the object has a single line mention in the catalog paper, and as discussed in the original AfD, this is almost certainly a spurious measurement and a non-notable object. Being included in a catalog does not make something notable. It also should not be on the list of "most massive black holes".

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: based on a Vizier lookup for reference #4, setting MBHCIV > 11.0, this object does have the highest value. Does that make it notable? There's no dedicated scientific study of this quasar; it's just one of 280,000 studied by the SDSS. Praemonitus (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The object does mot appear to be notable, other than the fact that it may have the most massive black hole ever, but i do not think it should exactly be deleted. Kepler-1229b talk

Merge to what though? I've removed it from the list of most massive black holes, because it is very likely an unreliable measurement. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of quasars. Kepler-1229b talk

Delete If the object had the most massive supermassive black hole known, I think that alone would easily establish notability. But this object's mass estimate is just one in a huge number of objects processed. It could be just a noisy measurement. The paper containing the mass estimate itself casts doubt on this object's mass value in the paragraph above section 4 (Summary). If it is a really solid candidate for the most massive, there's a good chance someone will do a followup study to prove that, investigate the object in detail, and publish a paper about it.PopePompus (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article might help to clarify the situation. Aldebarium (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Nice work. Now we just need someone to publish a paper on galaxy "sizes" (however defined) so we can lay that one to rest, too. ;-) - Parejkoj (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work spotting that article, Aldebarium. It looks like a strong case for delete now.PopePompus (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure, I am one of the authors, and the paper was written to try to settle this issue once and for all so we can avoid having this discussion again. To avoid COI questions I won't vote on this deletion poll. But the bottom line is that the huge mass estimate was just based on a mistaken measurement from a big catalog. Aldebarium (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a sentence at the end of the first paragraph pointing to your paper. Even though I suspect this article will be deleted, I think it's best not to have erroneous info on Wikipedia even for a short time.PopePompus (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2021 (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.