Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WISE 1405+5534

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 keep. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WISE 1405+5534[edit]

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

Not sure if this system meets WP:NASTRO. However, this one seems to have a small amount more coverage than others (although likely not enough to be significant), so I think this needs some AfD discussion. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail wp:NASTRO on all accounts. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given that it was estimated to be only 12.4 ly from Earth and is included in List of nearest stars at 16 ly. I still doubt whether Wikipedia benefits from deleting as many brown dwarf articles as possible, especially the ones that are less than 30 ly from Earth. -- Kheider (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears that more recent measurements put this one's distance at over 25 light years (meaning that it should be deleted from the List of nearest stars, as WISE 0410+1502 was deleted from the list earlier, for the same reason). As such, if it doesn't qualify for the List of nearest stars, it seems that it's a lot closer to failing WP:NASTRO... --IJBall (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But even then WISE 1405+5534 still counts as once having been considered one of the Sun's nearest neighbors. I am not comfortable deleting such articles. Besides, WP:NASTRO would suggest to MERGE not delete such an article . -- Kheider (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was considered closer, but not anymore. These are difficulties with measurement. Hekerui (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the very least does it have a history of measurements. --JorisvS (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails criteria of WP:NASTCRIT and does not belong on List of nearest stars either according to new data. Sufficient mention in List of brown dwarfs. Hekerui (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, the one line in the table? There is more information here than that. --JorisvS (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I didn't come across as mean. We have many objects for whom we could give the technical detail we give to this brown dwarf so we must excercise consideration on which to include unless we become a directory. Aside from the criteria, this one does not fall under closest stars anymore so I doubt it merits an article anymore. Hekerui (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do come across as extreme when it comes to enforcing WP:NASTRO, which by the way says to merge, not delete. When you and the Wiki-reich are done the only thing left in Category:Brown dwarfs will be the hypothetical Nemesis. I am somewhat surprised the whole category has not been nominated for deletion given that they are all below naked-eye visibility. -- Kheider (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Far from being a mere database entry. Multiple academic sources allow to build a meaningful encyclopedic article with lots of reliable, neutral, encyclopedic information: it thus meets the the reasons behind notability requirements. Another case showing that WP:NASTRO creates more problem than it solves, and it should be amended.--cyclopia ^speak! 16:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above keeps. Fotaun (talk) 19:39, 6 December 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.