Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gliese 661

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. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 661[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep: It has been the subject of a couple of multiple journal articles,[1][2][3] albeit fairly old ones, and is discussed in several others. Several refer to it as Furuhjelm 46, although that doesn't fit the naming conventions per WP:STARNAMES. Praemonitus (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True; WP:NCASTRO needs some major overhauls though; for example, Gliese designations are not often used in astronomy and IMO should be removed from that clause. There's also some other problems with it, so I think moving this to that name you mentioned after closure of this if it's kept would be a good idea. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the multiple independent articles directly about the subject found by Praemonitus. I don't think it matters that the sources are old; notability is not temporary. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 1 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) 15:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability has now been shown. SL93 (talk) 22:54, 8 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.