Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 1273

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HD 1273[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)

Fails WP:NASTRO. No journal coverage of this star individually or as one of a small number of objects, no significant popular coverage, not naked-eye, and no historical notability. Lithopsian (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into List of stars in Phoenix per nom. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: HD 12846 seems to fail WP:NASTRO as well; suggest adding to the nomination. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed that. I created a new discussion. Keeps things simpler, avoids trainwrecks. Different constellation, might confuse the outcome. Lithopsian (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I updated the article. HD 1273 is one of the 6 spectroscopic binary stars that was studied in detail by Bernard W. Bopp et al in 1970: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/147/4/355/2602844 ExoEditor 18:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's hardly naked-eye at 6.8 magnitude. Having appeared in a single paper is not enough, WP:NASTRO requires "significant commentary" on the object, and the paper provided doesn't say anything about this star specifically. The "notability" of the star comes only from being G-type and nearby, but there are hundreds of stars like this. Tercer (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you for your comment. I thought that WP:NASTRO criteria allowed for stand-alone articles if any of the 4 criteria are met. I would appreciate if the article isn't merged (I have spent quite some time searching information about it). ExoEditor 16:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right that WP:NASTRO states that any one of the 4 criteria is sufficient to establish notability, but which of the 4 criteria are you claiming is satisfied, and why?PopePompus (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. The star is visible to the naked eye according to the astronomical magnitude scale: http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/MagScale.html ExoEditor 16:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnitude 6.5 has been used as the consensus practical naked-eye limit in Wikipedia (eg. first hit in Google and ironically another comet page), and also the cutoff for the Bright Star Catalogue. If you want to nitpick to try and squeeze in a non-notable object on a technicality, you might force WP:NASTRO to be tightened up (see discussion). See also Limiting_magnitude#In_naked-eye_visibility, which gives perhaps the most widespread limit: "6th magnitude". Lithopsian (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:NASTRO should be updated to specify this 6.5 consensus value explicitly. One should not have to do a google search to figure out what a statement in WP:NASTRO means.PopePompus (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. WP:NASTRO only states that satisfying one of those criteria means the article is probably notable. To quote: "For the purposes of this guideline, notable means having attracted significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG. No astronomical object is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of object it is." Praemonitus (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ultimately, we should look for reliable sources (non-catalogs) that mention the object to ascertain whether it merits a Wikipedia page or not. Seeing none, it should be deleted. ExoEditor and PopePompus, see note 1 of WP:NASTCRIT: These criteria do not supersede WP:NOTABILITY, they merely supplement and clarify it within the context of astronomical objects. If an astronomical object does not meet the general notability guideline, especially if it lacks evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then it risks being merged or redirected to an existing article, or deleted altogether. We are missing the "significant" part here, hence the article should be deleted. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. significant coverage is best understood in terms of the possible available coverage in its field, and these sources provide it. We shouldn't put too much weight on the specific wording of a guideline; and the fact that it is only a guideline means it does not always apply--that there are relatively frequent circumstances where it's irrelevant (if they were rare, IAR would do it) , and I think it is the consensus of those working on subjects like this to judge as in the earlier keeps. The consensus gives the interpretation. There would be nothing easier than to object to the keeping or deletion of 80% of WP articles by interpreting the guidelines in ways not appropriate to the subject. I know there are some who would liketo do exactly that, but we are NOT an abridged encyclopedia. If we cover astronomy, we have to cover what's important to astronomy. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: none of the provided references satisfy WP:GNG. The closest is Bopp et al. (1970), but all that gives is some observational data. However, Catchpole (1972) pushes it closer to notability. I'm not clear why that wasn't included. Praemonitus (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that paper, I wasn't aware of it. I just included it in the article. Cheers.ExoEditor 19:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per WP:HEY. Check out the new references, etc, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no demonstrated notability for this object to justify a stand-alone article. Aldebarium (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 12846 for my opinion. Kepler-1229b talk

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.