Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BD-21 784


 * 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.  JGHowes   talk  16:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

BD-21 784

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. Probably also fails WP:NASTRO, the spirit if not the letter. A couple of scientific papers discuss this and a small number of other star systems, but mainly in the context of showing that they don't have a previously-suggested exoplanet. Not having an exoplanet isn't yet a cause for notability ... maybe one day. Otherwise a dim red dwarf with zero popular coverage. Lithopsian (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete: I only saw two papers that have any substantial discussion: one was the discovery paper and the other rejects the finding. There isn't a list of rejected exoplanet candidates, so no redirect. Praemonitus (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We could find a redirect target if you think there is something worth a mention. A line in List of stars in Eridanus, for example.  Lithopsian (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete There are plenty of things that are notable for not existing, but this exoplanet is not one of them. Alternatively, we could redirect it to List of exoplanets discovered in 2014, where it is mentioned, but BD-21 784 doesn't strike me as a plausible search term. Tercer (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Not very notable. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 19:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Pro-delete arguments of Lithopsian, Praemonitus or Tercer regarding disproven exoplanet are irrelevant here because the page of question is about host star, not about exoplanet. The star page do comply with the WP:NASTRO as Lithopsian mentioned.Trurle (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood my position. The only substantial discussions I found about the star were about the non-existent planet. If you disregard those, the star itself is completely non-notable. Praemonitus (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing I can find elsewhere points to this star being notable besides the disputed planet discovery ThomasAstro (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, Non notable subject. Alex-h (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, it seems that most articles cited are not about BD-21 784. Cinadon36 13:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, aside from the non-existent exoplanet mentioned, it looks like some of the papers cited in this article just have trivial mentions of the star. And some aren't even about BD-21 784, like Cinadon36 said. Unfortunately these aren't enough to pass WP:NASTRO. HoneycrispApples (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Which one do not mention BD-21 784?Trurle (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * References 6, 8, 9, and 10 in the article don't appear to mention BD-21 784 at all. Or anything else that it's known as, for that matter. (Gliese 160.2, Gliese 9144, LHS 1628 or HIP 19165) Even if they did mention it, a simple mention isn't enough to meet WP:NASTRO, an object has to have significant commentary about it to do so. HoneycrispApples (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For ref. 6 you likely use wrong link. Template do create multiple links, and one marked "Gaia EDR3 record for this source" is leading to exact entry. Reference 8 lists BD-21 784 properly as alias GJ 160.2. Reference 9 had a typo in arxiv link (you should have noticed it yourself). Fixed now. Finally, reference 10 lists star properly under alias GJ 160.2Trurle (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree I may not have looked thoroughly enough at the references, and I apologize for that. I am however still concerned about the notability of this star. The one reference that talks about BD-21 784 outside of it being an entry in a table or database (which again, does not demonstrate notability) is reference 10. The mention is 2 paragraphs which talk about how it might have a planet, and I doubt that 2 paragarphs qualify as "significant commentary" per WP:NASTRO. HoneycrispApples (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2021 (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.