Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stars more luminous than any closer star

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of stars more luminous than any closer star[edit]

[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)

Never cited any sources and no coverage in reliable sources. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 09:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No citations in the article. Cannot be verified. killer bee  09:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the first person to recommend AfD, I can attest to WP:NOTSTATS in addition to WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stars larger than any closer star is very similar, and could have been bundled with this one. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty cool. Whether this is OR/SYNTH is a bit fuzzy, but it is definitely pushing up against WP:CALC: Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies. If not OR, might not pass NLIST but could possibly be merged. I wonder if it can be transwikied somewhere in Wikibooks. I might ask like to userfy to attempt that at some point. —siro χ o 18:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of coverage in reliable sources as well as WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTSTATS. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the above reasons, and because it is dependent on the current accuracy of measurements. The more distant the component, the less likely the information is to be valid. Praemonitus (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because no sources have been cited, and is practically useless. Atlantlc27Lol (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2023 (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.