Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 234078

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HD 234078

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

This star is non-notable because it fails all criteria of WP:NASTRO and does not fulfill WP:GNG, either. Going through the WP:NASTRO criteria in order, it (1) is not visible to the naked eye and has never been so; (2) is one of several hundred thousand stars in a catalog which is not of particular interest to amateur astronomers; (3) has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works"; and (4) was cataloged after 1850. As for notability per WP:GNG, I cannot find any significant, in-depth coverage from reliable secondary sources. I did a full-text search for "HD 234078" in NASA's ADS search engine to search the scholarly literature, and I found that just one paper mentions this star, and even then, it does so just once, in a long table. Astro4686 (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per a very well reasoned and policy-supported nomination. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - possible claim to notability as a member of this list of nearby stars: List_of_nearest_bright_stars. Lithopsian (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a part of that list doesn't help it satisfy any of WP:NASTRO. For the brightness of an object (apparent brightness) to enter into notability it has to be visible to the naked eye. With an apparent brightness of 8.99, I don't believe that you have much of a chance of seeing it without at least binoculars. Insert CleverPhrase Here 14:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naked eye visibility is *one* possible path to notability. However there are plenty of others. I suggested one that could apply to this star: nearness to Earth. Lithopsian (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi @Lithopsian: Thank you for your thoughts. If this star had received significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources because of its proximity to Earth, the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) would be satisfied. However, I have been unable to find any such coverage, and as Praemonitus points out, there are many other stars that are closer to Earth. As for WP:NASTRO, it doesn't identify proximity to Earth as a basis for notability. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's an ordinary star with no interesting features, other than its relative proximity. (It's one of ~1,400 nearby stars within that distance.) I couldn't find any dedicated studies or even a brief mention in the scholarly journals. The star was included in a search for infrared excess, but that produced no result. Praemonitus (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically per nom (kudos for the well-detailed nomination). Yes, it is close to Earth, but that is not a criterion of WP:NASTRO (and much less of WP:GNG), and I do not see any compelling reason it should be specifically taken into account. Tigraan (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2016 (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.