Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 64180

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 of the discussion was delete. Proto::type 11:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HD 64180

This star is completely non-notable. SIMBAD returns no references to any scientific papers about this star [1] - it is basically just a number in the catalogues. Chaos syndrome 09:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. This star does seem to be completely unstudied, but in the absence of any definite benefit from deleting it, I will concur with Megapixie. Spacepotato 09:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Megapixie noted (in an edit summary) that this star was "Not notable other than being a star in a constellation - BUT- WP is not paper. No reason why we couldn't have an article for every star." However, one must note that this star isn't one of the stars which composes the constellation, but simply appears in the same portion of the sky. (This star, in fact, is significantly too dim to view with the naked eye.) Moreover, there are simply too many stars catalogued to create Wikipedia articles for each one. Rambot's mass-creation of US geography stubs would pale by comparison! Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until there are articles on other minor stars in this constellation, then merge into List of stars in Puppis constellation or somesuch. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 10:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Do note, however, that this star isn't even a proper component of the Puppis constellation - it's simply in the same region of sky. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It lies in the constellation Puppis, regardless of whether it is a part of the purely unscientific "stick Figure"--Kalsermar 16:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If we list every tenth-magnitude star in the sky, the "Random article" link will become useless, if nothing else. Tevildo 10:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Not really—we have 1,239,953 articles at the moment, and there are only 340,000 (or so) stars of magnitude 10.0 or above. At the moment, though, we're dealing with one article, rather than 340,000. Spacepotato 11:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. We don't need an article for every 9th magnitude star but it could be useful to have articles about a few of them so people can see how little information is known about most dim stars. I don't know why the HD 64180 article was created and I wouldn't go around creating more articles on other 9th magnitude stars just for fun, but now that it's here I'd rather keep it than delete it. By the way, I did find an article from 1952 that ADS thinks included HD 64180, but I couldn't actually find the star in the article. --Fournax 11:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Surely the lack of knowledge about random dim stars could be communicated more effectively on a more general page (maybe expanding stellar astronomy or something), rather than creating stubby articles to illustrate a point. Chaos syndrome 11:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I see no reason to collect nn articles until they make an nn list. And this article makes no case for notability, either stated or implied. Tychocat 11:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. An encyclopedia is a compendium of scientific or cultural knowledge. If we know nothing about it, it has no place in here. Fram 12:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm slightly concerned about having individual entries for every star that is mapped (do you know how many there are ?!?!??!?!) I think a better format for star articles would be to group them into constelations as a list or something (you may gather that I am not an astronomer, so have no knowledge about stars but there would be millions upon millions of stub entries if the articles where not somehow merged) DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 12:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A search for HD 64180 on the ADS Abstract Server (at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html) produces one scientific paper (from 1952) that even mentions this star. It has almost no scientific significance. No one would be able to write anything more about the star than what is already in the Wikipedia entry.George J. Bendo 13:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn star. --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — We do have articles about stars down to 15th magnitude or fainter (c.f. List of nearest stars). But there is usually something of note about them. A 9-10th magnitude star of class A0V is probably going to be a long, long distance from us. It doesn't even have a parallax listed. Lord knows I love astronomy, but I just don't see a point to this article other than to disambiguate the name. — RJH (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete we have deleted asteroids without notability before. Carlossuarez46 19:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, as before. Not a notable star, but still a star (and thus a huge flaming ball of hydrogen). With Wikipedia not being paper, I don't see any benefit from deleting it. It's not fiction, spam, advertising, or POV. I am puzzled as to why an article for this particular star was created however. Megapixie 23:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I like stars but I don't see the value of articles for non-notable ones. Flying Jazz 02:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A star is hardly non-notable. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 11:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Do you know how many billions of stars there are? KarenAnn 13:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not a notable star, doesn't have a proper name, a Bayer designation or even a Flamsteed number and there is no other claim to fame.--Kalsermar 16:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but citations/references are needed. 68.50.203.109 09:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I've added a link to the SIMBAD data for HD 64180. That page contains links to three references: the Tycho Reference Catalogue, the SAO Catalog, and the Michigan Spectral Survey. --Fournax 10:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk Merge would be okay (maybe even better) too, since this article probably won't grow beyond a stub anytime soon. JYolkowski // talk 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep let many stars shine. gidonb 02:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If there were a better target I'd say merge, but stars which are neither naked-eye visible nor scientifically notable don't need seperate articles. Eluchil404 04:43, 13 July 2006 (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.