Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KBC Void

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 keep. A number of the delete arguments appear to be more suited for a merger discussion (if this is the same as Local Void, but the argument given is not terribly clear) or a move request (if the title is made-up or incorrect) than for a "delete" outcome, as there are only weakly contested arguments that the topic has extensive coverage Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KBC Void

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

Talk about making up a name for yourself. There are zero scientific references to this name. The discovery paper itself does not mention it, which is normal, but no citing papers mention it either and call it by a number of different names. The name is mentioned in a number of press articles apparently triggered from an announcement by the discoverers. Even the existence of the void is uncertain, the discovery paper using the word "may" to describe it, and follow-up studies giving mixed results. WP:TOOSOON? Lithopsian (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-promotion, as per nom Power~enwiki (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now — lots of press coverage, and the work is still very recent. The OP criticism of science articles using different names from vulgar (common) usage is not uncommon. The above delete criticism about the name is moot since the name can change (via normal practice) when there is a more common name for it. The above delete criticism about the use of "may" and the presence of uncertainty is pretty much the standard status in science, and most science articles on WP would be deleted if a lack of uncertainty was the standard. — al-Shimoni (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for now. A potentially important topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I disagree. When you ignore the puffery, this is a single research paper's term, defined as "the region of space contained in a sphere, one billion light-years in radius, centered around the Earth". It is not in common usage. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is reported in many places now. The article is not very promotional. This idea may also contribute to the explanation of "dark energy", so the topic may get bigger and more important. Perhaps a new title will become apparent like Local Galaxy Distribution Under Density. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Essentially the same thing is already widely published as the "local void". We even have an article on it, now I come to look. Lithopsian (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Local Void is a much smaller entity inside this one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Local Void, Local Hole, call it what you will. The point is there are plenty of papers discussing a local under-density on scales comparable to what these authors (and nobody else) would like to call the KBC Void (maybe Local Void needs expanding a bit, pun intended). It isn't new, it isn't special, and no other astrophysicist anywhere has ever used this name. There are 36 citing papers (a decent number), but none of them even mention this name or regard the paper as anything other than one in a long series of publications on this issue. Lithopsian (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was proposed by two scientists whose initials are in it and the third person is another astronomer whose investigations supported it. It is not the same as the Local void. It is an enormous and unusual void in space in which our galaxy are located, and is of obvious encyclopedic importance.It explains inconsistencies in the Hubble Constant as measured by different methods which should, but have not, produced the same result. Its notability is supported by secondary coverage of the original scientific report, such as coverage in Smithsonian, Newsweek, and Forbes. Edison (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Unusual" is puffery. An area of space a billion light-years in radius is synonymous with "the entire universe" for all purposes other than astrophysics. Popular news coverage cannot demonstrate notability within astrophysics, only scholarly references can. There's no sign this name is important or that their research paper is correct. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You have an unusual understanding of what "puffery" is. See the essay Wikipedia:Wikipuffery. "Seven times bigger than normal" makes it "unusual", as the word is generally understood. SciNews called it "fascinating." Do you prefer that to "unusual? They also said it is the largest known void in the universe. Wikipedia deals with "Notability" as specified by WP:N. Where is the policy or guideline for your notion of "reliability within astrophysics"? We need not wait until it is proven that a scientific theory is "correct" before we have an article about it. Also, you stated that "An area of space a billion light-years in radius is synonymous with "the entire universe" for all purposes other than astrophysics." But Universe says the diameter of the entire universe is 91 billion light years. Observable universe lists various historic estimates of its diameter both smaller and larger than that, but none are as small as the figure you stated, which has little bearing on the notability of this subject. Edison (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is normal? How many other billion-light-year sized areas of space have we studied? The answer is "None". Also, we do need to wait for at least one paper to cite the term defined before including it. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please cite some policy or guideline to support your opinion. Your speculations about "How many other billion-light-year sized areas of space have we studied?" is irrelevant. WP:N is satisfied and the article should be kept. Edison (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2017 (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.