Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 84406

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 redirect to James Webb Space Telescope. Star Mississippi 01:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HD 84406

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Nominating on behalf of IP editor. Rationale below.

This article is a blatant failure of WP:NASTRO as well as WP:GNG. Twice I attempted to redirect this to the appropriate section at James Webb Space Telescope, but both times was reverted without explanation. An extremely similar situation has already taken place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2MASS J17554042+6551277, in which the result of the discussion was a consensus to redirect similarly. So, here we are. The WP:NASTRO failure is pretty clear -- a WP:BEFORE search of the scientific literature pulled up one or two brief mentions of this, in massive lists with no other relevant discussion. And WP:GNG is similarly skimpy. While there are lots of mentions of this due to its role as a calibration target for JWST, there's no significant, in-depth discussion of the star itself. Any information about the star's role as a calibration target should be (and already is) at the JWST article. Notability is not inherited, and thus I suggest a deletion followed by a creation of the redirect I attempted in the first place. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JWST or First light (astronomy). The star isn't notable, the telescope is and there's no need for an article for a fact that's specific to the telescope. Reywas92^Talk 15:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per above. This star was chosen for its Webb focusing role precisely because it is stable and isolated. It has no particularly interesting features and lacks any serious studies. Perhaps in the future that will change, but for now a redirect will suffice. I added a row for the star in the List of stars in Ursa Major article, but it definitely fails WP:NASTRO. Praemonitus (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect no inherent interest outside JWST. PianoDan (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the telescope's article per nom, star is not notable by itself (at least for now). Artem.G (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. As stated above, notability is not inherited. Aldebarium (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, I agree with the nomination, redirecting to the telescope's article makes the most sense.
Comment: Why should we redirect to the James Webb Space Telescope instead of List of stars in Ursa Major? Although there is no inherited notability, there is still a lot of information in the infobox that could be put to good use there. People will want to know more about HD 84406 - not just that it was used for the James Webb Space Telescope - and List of stars in Ursa Major is a good article we can carry this information to without losing it altogether, while redirecting HD 84406 to there as it does not meet notability guidelines. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2022 (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.