Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stars in the Hyades

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. Sandstein 19:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of stars in the Hyades[edit]

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

I'm proposing this article for removal because of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Hyades cluster as a whole is highly notable in astronomy, and that references exist to verify that these stars are members of the cluster. However, all but a handful of the listed stars are presumably non-notable (per WP:NASTRO); they are mainly notable as a collective whole and there is little benefit at this point for a directory listing of the individual members. Praemonitus (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as nominator.~~ Possibly a listing of the 26[1] member stars that are visible to the naked eye would be acceptable under WP:NASTRO, but that would require a different article name. (Alternatively, that could be listed in the Hyades (star cluster) article.) Praemonitus (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck your duplicate !vote, as your nomination necessarily counts as support for deletion. Adding a subsequent comment with a boldfaced "delete" makes it appear at first glance that your nomination has another editor supporting it. postdlf (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Duly noted. Praemonitus (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it does not make sense having this information in a separate article. It would be much better reducing the list to relevant stars (ie, visible to the naked eye, but also other stars if they are relevant for any reason), and including it as a section of Hyades (star cluster). This is what has been done for the Pleiades, and this is what is done with the lists of stars for each constellation, such as the list of stars in Taurus. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom: In the main Hyades article I've added a Brightest stars section to tabulate the brighter members. That table can be enlarged (using the provided source) by expanding the magnitude range, should somebody see the need. Praemonitus (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reluctantly. I don't think the naked-eye limitation being suggested by others is that important; the Hyades white dwarfs (both their properties, and that the cluster has them at all) have been quite significant over time, and none of those are naked-eye brightness. (For example, V471 Tau would, I think, merit its own article, though there isn't one now.) However, the other arguments for deletion are valid, and this list doesn't add anything of usefulness to an encyclopedia that a link to a reference doesn't do better. BSVulturis (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because WP:NOT, and for the reasons stated by User:BSVulturis and others above. --Bejnar (talk) 05:43, 3 October 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.