Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green star (astronomy)

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. Star Mississippi 01:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green star (astronomy)[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)

Article recently DEPRODed. There is some coverage online on the topic, but I don't believe it's notable enough for its own article. Besides that, the article covers what "green stars" are in a couple lines in the lead and then talks about background information in depth but with few citations and language that doesn't follow MOS. Merging to Spectral classification could also work. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not entirely convinced that this needs an article of its own; however, the tone problems seem fixable (I made a few edits in that regard), and I'm not sure what the best merge target would be. An article like Stellar classification is pretty intense, whereas this is the kind of topic that might have more casually curious readers. (There's a Feynman story where he uses a math book talking about "green stars" as an example of how all the books he read for the California textbook commission were written by people who didn't know what they were talking about. That seems almost too much like 2004 "In popular culture" Wikipedia to include here, though.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion. Additional discussion on notability and/or potential merge targets would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be notable. If someone can show multiple secondary sources with significant coverage I will of course retract this. If delete does win then perhaps it is worth a mention in a more general article such as the visual presentation section in Night sky the part on the "Planckian Locus and its effect on the perceived color of stars" would make for a good part of a section relating to appearance in the more general star article. As for the list of things that are not green stars these would perhaps be best included in appearance section for the relevant pages. I would stress the notability of a topic is not impacted by the current state of the article. EvilxFish (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2024 (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.