Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GJ 1279

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. WP:SOFTDELETE however. Secret ^account 03:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 1279[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It is worthwhile to have the information, and there are a lot of references that include this star. Perhaps Debris disks near Earth or debris disks is a target. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The star is significant within Wikipedia as the destination of links from other pages and is itself significant as (1) the Star is within 50 light years of earth making it part of the stellar local area, and (2) at an apparent magnitude of +8 is on the edge of the visibility horizon. Making it a significant feature in the night sky. I also echo Graemes comment regarding retaining information that has been entered into wikipedia, it is not like it is taking up page space. DARC 12345

Your figure of 50 light years appears to be an arbitrary personal criteria. I'm not clear why that should be used as a reason to keep an article. Nor does being on the edge of visibility make it notable. Praemonitus (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NASTRO. Despite what the above users say, this star is too far and too dim to be independently notable without in-depth sources (publications, not just database entries) that cover it specifically. These sources do not seem to exist, and WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a compelling argument for keeping. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; it fails to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2013 (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.