Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2MASS J17554042+6551277

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 JWST. Redirects are cheap Star Mississippi 02:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

2MASS J17554042+6551277

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

2MASS J17554042+6551277 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

That star is only notable as JWST's calibration object, and probably wouldn't be expanded anytime in the future, and so it's reasonable to redirect this page to JWST. Artem.G (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: fails WP:NASTRO. Notability is not inherited. Praemonitus (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Retain: Although it is an unexceptional star it was still the first light full resolution image from the JSWT and as such is therefore notable if only for the huge number of faint background galaxies revealed.

  NB 2MASS J17554042+6551277 is in Draco and was *NOT* the original brighter star HD84406 in Ursa Major used in the earlier mirror alignment phase.

  It should not be merged with HD84406 because they are *NOT* the same object! HD84406 would be 09473055+63145209 in the 2MASS catalogue notation.

  There is a comparison with the ground based DECaLS 4m telescope image here: https://twitter.com/GJDonatiello/status/1504394237844115456 2A00:23C7:BB89:DD01:D514:85EE:DE04:1096 (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to JWST. Artem.G (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC) (as nominator)
• Delete: not notable according to WP:NASTRO guidelines. Aldebarium (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Surely now that this star has been in the center of so much attention, enough reliable sources will pop up describing it that it will quickly reach notability as per WP:GNG? -- intgr [talk] 17:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

+1 -- LAZA74 (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL. Praemonitus (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comments (leaning on keep) It is the main subject of the latest (as in released just an hour ago) Sixty Symbols video. One, The video states that it is utterly unremarkable... Not far nor near, not big nor small, not bright nor faint... Yet... they made a video about it! So is it notable for being unremarkable, yet used in a most remarkable telescope as one of its first photos? Two, the video points to this discussion, that's how I found it, so there may be more (fans...) coming from there soon. - Nabla (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Just because you can write a solid, but singular, sentence about a subject, doesn't mean it also needs an entire article. A single mention on the JWST page is enough. The Sixty Symbols video brought me here, it doesn't have a call to action or anything like that. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 20:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Merge 2MASS J17554042+6551277 is as notable as HD 84406 for the same reason; it's a JWST alignment target. I suggest a List of JWST alignment targets page listing all of them (both of them for now, maybe more later) with redirects for all targets listed. Philh-591 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

But there is nothing to merge, the whole article is a single sentence. And I think that a list of targets that would contain just these two objects are not really useful. Artem.G (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

HD 84406 also fails to satisfy WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. It is just a mundane star with no studies. Praemonitus (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Merge The sentence is useful and belongs somewhere. I would add it as a footnote in the JWST article, to where the star is first mentioned there. A list of JWST calibration targets may make sense in the future, if there is a reasonable number of them, i.e. more than two and less than, say, 25.--agr (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Merge with JWST. It was, like above, the The Sixty Symbols video that brought me here. Relevent to the main article, not a stand alone. Edmund Patrick – confer 15:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep The article is now more than a one liner. The article has a wikidata-object, 3 references and 3 links and interesting content. There are tons of twitter discussion and comparisons with other telescopes like Spitzer. --Kolossos (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge Same reason as Philh-591. It's has the same notability as HD 84406, and I do think that a List of JWST alignment targets would be more useful. Washing Machine (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge Given the notability of the star, it deserves an article. Is this the same object as HD 84406? If so, merge it into that article. If they are different objects, keep.
• Keep People will search for this after noticing the pathbreaking JW photo, and the article gives a bit of context. Suspect that professionals will also be drawn to it hereafter and gather more data, despite its unassuming nature. JMK (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per above reasons. Vitaium (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

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.