Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 12846

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 redirect to List of stars in Aries. If there is content worth merging, it may be retrieved from the history Vanamonde (Talk) 19:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HD 12846[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 papers concerning this star or a small number of stars including this one, no significant popular coverage, not naked-eye, no historical notability. Lithopsian (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into List of stars in Aries per nom. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Redirect to List of stars in Aries, though it's not currently listed there for some reason. Reywas92^Talk 22:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible, its been done for other stars. Obviously not every star is in the list, but most potentially-notable ones are even if they're redlinks. Lithopsian (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I updated the article. HD 12846 is considered by Turnbull and Tarter (2011) as one of the 25 habitable stars within 25 parsecs: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/379320/meta ExoEditor 18:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Being a potential "HabStar" does not make it notable. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for your comment. That's true. However, the star has the same apparent magnitude as 7 Aquilae (6.89): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_Aquilae#:~:text=7%20Aquilae%20is%20a%20star,apparent%20visual%20magnitude%20of%206.9. which seems to be considered visible to the naked eye. I think that editor used this classification: http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/MagScale.html that mentions that magnitud 7 are the faintest naked-eye stars. I just included the information in the article. ExoEditor 01:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is Wikipedia to have 11,000+, and in the future perhaps several orders of magnitude more, individual articles dedicated to each potential HabStar in the galaxy? Additionally, that Harvard list needs to be deprecated, as there is no way - NO WAY - the human eye can resolve/detect a magnitude 6.9 star without optical assistance, regardless of background darkness. See Magnitude (astronomy). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will add here that the Turnbull and Tarter paper is 17 years old, their analysis was self-limited to sun-like stars, and a LOT has changed in the intervening years, to wit: almost every discoverer of an "interesting" exoplanet claims it is potentially habitable, regardless of the type of star it orbits (that, along with a beautiful artistic rendering, is how their institution's press release gets picked up by BBC, CNN, etc.). The prospect of many thousands of similar Wikipedia articles being produced by, let's call them HabStar enthusiasts, thus seems a legitimate concern. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's nearby, it's habitable, and it has been mentioned as such in published literature. There are very few stars that fulfill these criteria, a few dozen at most, so we're not at risk of getting thousands of articles on uninteresting subjects. While it might technically satisfy WP:NASTRO's criteria by being visible to the naked eye, it's really on the edge, so I wouldn't count that. Tercer (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find any published papers that give it more than a cursory mention. It fails to satisfy WP:GNG. 17:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete None of the references in the article do anything other than list the star; there is no specific commentary about this particular star in any of them. I looked at the references returned by SIMBAD, and I didn't see any journal articles about this specific star. ADS also returns nothing. I know naked eye astronomical objects are supposed to be inherently notable, but without an explicitly specified magnitude cut-off, the rule isn't helpful for objects fainter than 6.0.PopePompus (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments (although I don't know what editor wrote the first comment since it isn't signed). 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, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest re-reading the full WP:NASTRO document. It only says an article is probably notable if it meets one of those criteria. That is primarily to help avoid the generation of articles that are likely non-notable. Praemonitus (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No demonstrated notability. Being listed in a catalog of potentially habitable star systems doesn't confer notability, especially if there are no known exoplanets orbiting the star. Aldebarium (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep Not necessarily notable, but I recommend merging or keeping. 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.