Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 166348

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 Corona Australis. I'm working on the assumption that those wishing to delete are ambivalent to the article being redirected. If not, please come and see me on my talk page and we can discuss it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HD 166348

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. Although some Google Scholar hits do turn up for the various designations of this star, they are all purely in passing or in a large list. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a mundane star that lacks sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find the nontrivial coverage that would be needed to pass WP:NASTRO, and I don't think being the nearest star in a particular direction (despite being not particularly near) is a strong enough claim for notability (especially since without sources this claim appears to be original research by synthesis). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stars in Corona Australis where summary information about this star can already be found. The fact that it fails WP:NASTRO doesn't mean it should be deleted. What it means is that it shouldn't have a separate article.—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- However, there is currently not a section for this star in that article. We would either need to create one (IMO a bad idea since we would have to do the same for every single star in every constellation) or just delete this article (my preference). StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's covered in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (specifically WP:ALLORNOTHING). With apologies for contradicting you we're not required to cover every single star in every constellation and we couldn't. Oh, sure, in theory yes: we could aim to list all the stars, or all the minor planets, or all the species of beetle, or all the mountains in Europe, or all the villages in India, in relevant lists. In practice this would take decades to do and by the time we'd finished it the information would be out of date. Wikipedia's fundamentally un-completable. (That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to try.) But per policy there are things we are required to do, and one of them is preserve appropriate content. In this case that can be done via the list.—S Marshall T/C 17:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. The only mentions I could find were routine or trivial. Falls far short of out notability requirements, in partucular WP:NASTRO. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Perusing the bibliographic links on a SIMBAD query for this star, they are all catalogs and rediscussions of collective properties of nearby stars. Interesting only as part of the herd, this fails notability tests. BSVulturis (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per S Marshall. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:35, 19 June 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.