Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC+79 3888


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn. Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

AC+79 3888

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a completely unremarkable star whose only claim to fame is that Voyager 1 will pass somewhere near it in a few million years, and that's already mentioned in the Voyager 1 article. Reyk YO!  02:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Withdraw Nomination- I am hereby withdrawing the nomination for this article because consensus is clearly to keep it. But I do think that a notability criterion for stars will be necessary sooner or later- statements like "all stars are automatically notable" need to be discussed because a lot of people (myself included) would say that it just ain't so. Reyk YO!  03:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am inclined to say that all stars are notable for the same reasons as other automatically notable subjects. The article already has two references. I am not sure where an astronomer would look up information about this star, but that source should also be listed as a reference for this article. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- Is there a policy about "automatically notable subjects", and do stars fall under it? Given that the galaxy contains something like 300 billion stars (that's 50 stars per human being) I don't see how stars can be automatically notable. This one doesn't have any remarkable properties, it's only distinguished because of Voyager 1, and it should not inherit notability any more than articles about people should. Reyk  YO!  04:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment One is loathe to say that stars are not notable. But I recognize the nominator's point -- at some point, somebody's going to have to create notability guidelines for stars. After all, there are trillions of them (and we discover more with every passing day). We could easily bury Wikipedia under a ton of star stubs. RayAYang (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is just barely outside our list of nearest stars, and likely to become at some point one of the very nearest stars to us. I think tracking these "sungrazers" is worthwhile. --Dhartung | Talk 03:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm looking for a definitive source, but it's amazing how many times this anecdote, if you will, appears in both serious and recreational literature (such as Sagan's novel Contact (novel)). It is apparently believed to be, barring improvements in technology, the first star encountered this closely by a manmade object.


 * Keep - I certainly agree with Reyk; stars are not automatically notable.  However, given that this star will be the first one with which an object created by our species will rendezvous, I think that confers an unique notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I tend to think that anything so gigantic ought to be notable. Seriously, as space exploration increases in sophistication and reach, this star will be one of those frequently considered by astronomers. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the voyager rendevous makes it notable. 58.166.91.48 (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is notable as one (#57) of the 100 nearest known star systems to the solar system, apart from the Voyager connection. Spacepotato (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - All stars within 20 light years should have virtually automatic notability due to value in stargazing, planet finding efforts, and future space exploration, in my opinion. But the fact that this could be one of the first stars a human craft approaches is icing on the cake. And now, I shall boldly go... :) Okiefromokla questions? 02:23, 18 July 2008 (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.