Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gliese 146

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 no consensus even after discounting several with faulty rationales. Secret ^account 01:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 146[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I haven't found any articles about this star individually, it is one of only 155 K type stars within 50 light years of the sun. These are of especial interest for habitability searches since due to their long term stability, planets orbiting them may be more habitable even than those for G type stars. As a result there are many studies that include these stars, and for instance Gliese 146 has 48 citations in its SIMBAD bibliography, which is typical for these stars. I think myself that due to the special interest of these stars for habitability, and their accessibility for observation from Earth, that it would be appropriate to include a list type article of all the 155 candidates and to have separate entries for each one in wikipedia, including both those known to have planets and those not yet known to have planets. Robert Walker (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have proposed that the notability criteria are updated to include nearby extra solar objects. See Suggestion for update of the notability criteria to include nearby stars Robert Walker (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Information in the article is just a listing of technical data. Sources on the SIMBAD pages show no special interest in this object - it was studied along with thousands of others in large-scale surveys. The main "reference" in this article is not a professional source. It's an artist's website, stacked with the previously available (from SIMBAD) technical specs. The 48 papers mentioned above will merely list this object as one of many. None of the papers (that I could tell) singled the object out for special scrutiny - except for perhaps the 1953 paper, in which this object was one of five studied. Nothing here indicates this object would pass WP:GNG, let alone WP:NASTRO. The one sentence of the article that attempts to establish notability shouldn't be an issue here: notability for astronomical objects is not inherited. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then redirect to a new list of the nearby K type stars. There are a bunch of these K type star articles up for deletion, and they should all get the similar treatment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our galaxy contains billions of stars. Those few hundred which are close enough to be of special interest and study should all have articles. Warden (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Graeme Bartlett. Warden's vote falls under WP:ILIKEIT, as does most of Robert's. I don't see why we should delete the article altogether; precedent is to have list articles of non-notable planets, and I think doing the same for these sorts of stars is a good idea. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misrepresent the !votes of myself and Robert Walker. Our case is based upon the proximity of this star which means that it is studied more closely than the average star in our galaxy. Robert Walker provides details of the resulting large number of citations which testify to this scholarly interest in the topic. The suggestion that we have some personal affection for the topic seems absurd. Warden (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Would be of great interest to astrophysicists. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Gliese_146 -RoseL2P (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that nearly all of the links to it are from the template of stars within 40-45 light years of the Sun, so that's a misleading gauge of the relevance of the article. If something is discovered around it, then it would clearly merit its own article; at that point, there would be significant coverage that doesn't exist now. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 10:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I encourage users participating here to carefully read Notability (astronomical objects) before leaving a vote. The votes for "keep" and the arguments used therein are uninformed as to the consensus guideline on articles for astronomical objects. Objects do not have inherent or inherited notability, no matter what class of object they are, or what their distance should be. Start with WP:GNG - if an object cannot pass this, and Gliese 146 cannot, then it surely won't pass WP:NASTRO. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RoseL24 and Robertinventor. There is sourced, reliable information about this object, it seems widely cited, and there is no clear benefit to our readers or the encyclopedia in deleting this article. This ongoing effort to delete perfectly neutral, sourced and meaningful articles only to comply robotically with a guideline seems disruptive to me. WP:NASTRO seems to fail in these cases. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into list of nearby stars or delete: plainly fails the "significant coverage" component of WP:GNG. There's nothing notable about this particular star; it's just in a potentially-interesting class of objects. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 10:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the reasons listed above. It is an interesting star for several reasons, most importantly the fact that it's our galactic neighbor. Andrew³²⁷ 17:45, 28 August 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.