Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 34137

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HD 34137

[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 and unreferenced orphan. No specific research published concerning this star, only 10 mentions showing in other papers, no popular coverage. Not naked eye, multiple, variable, or having any other unusual characteristics Lithopsian (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tentatively. How utterly odd a nomination. I am not Italian but interested in what our other languages on Wikipedia do; they have a better auto-generated chart for each star showing position. Their list is on your own measures better, running to about half of our length only the top-half of most visible stars naming their list, sensibly the "principal" stars in Orion. It is from that list that I have added the two missing stars to the English project - i.e. it:Stelle_principali_della_costellazione_di_Orione - I respect all of the nominator's tagging and skilled copy-editing but forgive me when I say this strikes of the actions of someone who cares not for equivalence in European projects, which are just as good, and acts unilaterally and furthermore acts in a way which turns wikipedia red not green. I believe these two can be made out "easily" with binoculars. Harmonisation would be nice.- Adam37 Talk 14:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam37: Please. Enough with the continuing WP:PA on other editors (Here and elsewhere). Attack the idea NOT the person. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we just love wikipedia. Anything you write is torn to shreds. And I thought translation would be a lark.- Adam37 Talk 19:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:REDLINK why are there so many stars written in redlink format at our truly long List_of_stars_in_Orion??? Someone is plainly keen to have the astronomical community waste their time writing articles editors such as you, proposing deletion, oppose.- Adam37 Talk 14:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Information available is in a list (List of stars in Orion), doesn't need a standalone article. We should probably clean up that list and remove the redlinks, per WP:WTAF. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That "should" is too weakly put, quoting the guidance you cite chapter and verse " there is no point whatsoever in red-linking to relevant but non-notable subjects, since their non-notability precludes them having their own articles and thus ever having blue links". I would not wish people to waste hours of time. It is certainly not for want of thinking carefully about notability before I added this article, although I am not a trained astronomer so may have under-estimated this star's importance by a large factor.- Adam37 Talk 17:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As an issue of fact, HD 34137 does not appear in List of stars in Orion. Deleting this page will therefore remove the information from Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 18:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have, not having then seen the above comment, added it for international harmony. It will be quickly removed if this deletion takes place. That list is kept to article-level notability. Let's not go there (as the list/article is all governed so rigidly by WP:NASTRO)) the Italian astronomy portal is rightly so relaxed as not to have published guidelines on notability; and they take note of what "half of other major languages" do expressly in determining that and also what redlinks to create for a list of desired articles. That was the source of this article and it has many more, covering many of the present NASTRO notable redlinks in English wikipedia, and like this, some besides. In my opinion the focus on variables is boring, as interesting and diverse as they are and it is high time to start just making English wikipedia what the other articles in astronomy in other cultures and countries cover too; they think it notable; someone writes on it; people have for say stars above 8th magnitude, more interesting data. Why do I feel like I am flogging a dead horse? - Adam37 Talk 20:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Adam37: Why do I feel like I am flogging a dead horse? Are you familiar with how AfD works? Contents of the Italian Wikipedia are of absolutely no relevance to editorial decisions on the English Wikipedia (there is no desire of "international harmony" or whatever across Wikipedias, which are independent projects). If WP:NASTRO is too rigid or leaning too much towards deletion, open an RfC to change it, but don't handwave it away on a particular article. (You can argue either that HD 34137 meets NASTRO, or that it has very special characteristics that trump NASTRO in this particular case, but if your argument applies to any kind of astronomical article then it must follow the policies.). (I express no opinion as to whether the topic meets NASTRO or not, but I see no reason not to apply it.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Paaa! There is a desire to translate and to some extent take an interest, even if just in linguistic nicieties and elements of coverage in most articles. It is, I learn, not all. One learns from one's mistakes.- Adam37 Talk 20:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, This paper uses HD 34137 as one of six calibration stars. They were selected from a catalog of calibration stars compiled in this work. The total number of stars in this catalog is relatively small; 948. That makes them more than run-of-the-mill but I don't know if that raises them to notable per WP:NASTRO. Possibly WP:NASTCRIT criterion #2 applies here, so perhaps I should say weak keep. SpinningSpark 22:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable per SpinningSpark. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in 10 sources in the SIMBAD database. As it is included in the Henry Draper catalogue it must have been discovered a long time ago. (I am tempted to suggest we include all stars in the catalogue of 1924). As an orange giant, this is a bright star. James500 (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no significance to this star. It is not notable at all and fails WP:NASTRO. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not a notable star. Having actually looked at the so-called "significant coverage" in the purported ten SIMBAD sources I can confirm that none of them talk about it specifically, they just list it in large catalogues or as handy nearby photometric calibration objects in studies of something else entirely. This does not amount to significant coverage. This star seems to fail the relevant criteria in WP:NASTRO. Reyk _YO! 07:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable per WP:GNG. I found one usage as a calibration star, but no substantial coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2018 (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.