Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gliese 809

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 no consensus to delete. kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 809

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. Not in a catalogue of note to amateurs (Bayer or Flamsteed), not visible to the naked eye, not discovered before 1850, and no significant coverage in studies. 23 light-years distant is not close enough to be notable for that reason. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: the star actually shows up in quite a few papers, but it's almost always as a data point with no descriptive text. It has been in group studies as a candidate flare star, and just in general as a nearby M-type star. But I wasn't able to find enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the Wikipedia article describes a star relatively close at hand to earth. This description of the star appears to be a WP:RS. Nominator's rationale fails to convince me that deleting this article improves the encyclopedia. Jus da fax 14:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page you link to is the very definition of a database entry, just containing info on the basic properties of the star, with no indication of why it is relevant or notable per WP:GNG. GNG requires significant coverage, which the source you mention lacks. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree the policy you cite "requires" stars to be written about like they are people. At some point you have to be reasonable, and apply WP:IAR. Deleting this article does not improve the encyclopedia, it reduces human access to knowledge. Repeat: your nomination does not improve the encyclopedia. Jus da fax 00:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you and I differ on what it means to improve the encyclopedia; I believe that in nearly all cases an article that can be written entirely from boilerplate text is not notable and does not benefit the encyclopedia. And besides, the argument that you think something is a useful subject doesn't mean anything in a deletion discussion, but rather the guideline WP:NASTRO and the policy WP:GNG are what matters. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At less than 25 light-years from the Sun, this is a nearby star. The only reasonable alternative is to move it to a list that includes stars 16-30 light years from the Sun. If it was more than 30 light-years away I would not be as concerned. -- Kheider (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly support a provision in NASTRO allowing for objects within a certain distance to be notable. However, I feel that 25 light-years is a bit too far and includes some obviously otherwise non-notable objects. I personally adhere to a 20 light-year (in at least 2 studies) cutoff for notability, as I think it's a reasonable compromise between those who want larger distances and those who want no distance clause. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are 74 stars within 16.2 light years, so that would extrapolate to 470 within 30 light years. It wouldn't be any great burden to maintain that number of articles. But, in the case of faint red dwarfs, I'm not convinced that's a reliable metric for notability. Praemonitus (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this star and its planets were just featured in last night's National Geographic TV's animated documentary about space exploration. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something is clearly wrong there, because I cannot find a single source demonstrating that this star has planets. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2015 (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.