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 not delete. Other outcomes (merge, redirect, listify, etc.) can be hashed out on the article talk page. Kurykh (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar explosion[edit]

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

Of the 33 pages that use the term "stellar explosion" almost every single one of them defines which term (nova/supernova/etc) is being referenced within the same sentence. Basically, this is unnecessary disambiguation. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How annoying. On my exploration, I discovered there's a category of stellar explosion Luminous red nova caused by stellar collision. Thats interesting! Part of the magic of wikipedia is it's ability to guide you to interesting things, even if you aren't looking for them. Are we short of hard drive space or something?? Fmadd (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For Wikipedia to succeed, we need a certain amount of organization and consolidation. The stellar explosion article does not need to stand on its own when other articles suffice. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'organisation' , yes, these kind of pages "organize" the material by helping the reader discover. Isn't it great that wikipedia can guide you to information you weren't aware of? If you think this is "overlinking", why not push for a way of prioritizing links, instead of it having to be a binary choice (LINK or NO LINK). All this time you spend fighting me could go into improving the platform. The links could be visually weighted (the shade of blue). Fmadd (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read about this, Word_embedding, now imagine extending this algorithm to include wikilinks in the vocabulary. Wikipedia should be an amazing resource for AI training. The more links it has the better. Please please please instead of getting all uptight about what should be linked, can we extend the wikipedia platform to prioritize links, so it's not a binary choice, if people think there are 'too many'. Every link we add makes the data set 'smarter'. Fmadd (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or keep as is. This is certainly a plausible search term for a topic, so no reason to delete. It could also include solar flare, or Failed supernova in its targets if kept as disambiguation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme Bartlett, would renaming the page "Types of stellar explosions" be better? This is starting to feel less like a DAB and more like a list. Primefac (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Stellar explosion" is a likely thing for people to type to search for something "Types of ..." is much less likely, so I would suggest Stellar explosion types if you want to have "type". But if this really turns into a list, then it should be called "List of stellar explosion types"
I can sort of get behind it being a list. As mentioned in the nomination, almost every usage is something along the lines of "X is a type of stellar explosion" or "a stellar explosion such as X, Y, Z". In other words, it just really doesn't fit as a dab, and it really doesn't fit in the lead of Type Ib and Ic supernovae (even as a list), which is what Fmadd is insistent upon. Primefac (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i'd be perfectly happy with a list. Anything that lets you explore.(One thing I run into is ambiguity.. should it be a list or a category. is it an overkill to have a category for a few entires) Fmadd (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Tidal disruption event which may look like an explosion from a distance, but is something different! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Methods of a 'stellar explosion' covers a very wide plethora of complicated mechanisms that are not simple to explain. It simply says that a supernova is a type of stellar explosion, and is among a group of objects in several sub-categories. Anyone who doesn't like it, please properly use the Talkpages. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks.. "very wide plethora" ... that's what I suspected. If stellar explosion and supernova were synonymous, why would both terms exist. They must carry different connotations. A curious mind seeing 'a supernova is a stellar explosion' will want to know if there are others. Fmadd (talk)

rename&redirect (whats the etiquette here?) - rename this as 'list of stellar explosion events', [stellar explosion] can just redirect to that. the exploration is interesting. the appeal of wikipedia is to guide you to interesting info you didn't know to look for. Fmadd (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Make into a list article. Disambiguation pages are not meant to define shades of meaning between related terms. — Gorthian (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Make into a list, Delete or Make a real article (in order of probability). If you think you can come up with enough actual (sourced) content to write an article, the last would be preferable. But what's there now is just a list and should be organized and described as such. The other thing, which I mentioned on the editor's talk page, is to beware of overlinking. Adding extra links devalues other links in the article simply by clutter, so it's certainly questionable whether wikilinking every mention of "stellar explosion" that can be found, is worth it. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have discovered things I did not know just going through this process.. isn't the beauty of wikipedia to inform people - can we push for a means of prioritizing links, for example 'list of', glossary definitions' could be automatically de-emphasized (the system clearly queries the links as part of rendering the page, because it knows about redlinks, and there's a facility to highlight disambiguation pages too) Fmadd (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:20, 16 February 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.