Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gliese 518

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 518

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

I don't believe that this meets WP:NASTRO. Although it is indeed a somewhat close white dwarf, it's not that close or one of the very closest to really be notable based on that alone. Otherwise, it's a very normal white dwarf that doesn't have anything notable about it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Google scholar finds one paper with this in its title, but apparently it's actually about British politics and only uses it as an example of something remote. Nevertheless, there are a fair number of hits for it under the name "Wolf 489", including one [1] which calls it one of the first two K-type white dwarfs known. Is it enough? I'm not sure, but maybe. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, if kept, we should move it to Wolf 489 then. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A move isn't necessary, but Wolf 489 should at least redirect to this article. -- 203.171.196.14 (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not to be confused with Gliese 581 which is much more notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple GS hits under the name "Wolf 489." -- 203.171.196.14 (talk) 14:33, 29 July 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.