Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue dwarf (red-dwarf stage)


 * 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   keep. Whether to redirect or merge is left as an editorial decision. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Blue dwarf (red-dwarf stage)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The topic of the article seems like an unnotable theory, with not much impact on the astronomy sciene. The article itself cites only one source, [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asna.200510440/abstract Adams, F. C.; P. Bodenheimer, G. Laughlin (2005). "M dwarfs: planet formation and long term evolution"], which was cited only 6 times according to Google Scholar. As far as I know (thanks to user:החבלן from he.wiki), searching for another text about it, there's also the article [http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/482/1/420 Gregory Laughlin, Peter Bodenheimer, and Fred C. Adams (1997). "The End of the Main Sequence"], by the same scientists, which according to Google Scholar was cited only 41 times. If this is really all, then the article's subject is one of many scientific theories, and not a theory that left any significant impact on its field of research. So I don't think it follows notability guidelines. When you search for information about it on Google Scholar, please notice that there are several meanings to Blue dwarf, and usually the term doesn't refer to this red-dwarf stage. Tomer T (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dwarf star leaving the history, or WP:SMERGE. While sympathetic to the deletion rationale, I do not think deletion solves anything here. "Blue dwarf" is seriously ambiguous, stellar classification telling us O-type stars are informally called blue yet O-type main sequence star does not mention the word. Dwarf star could be expanded to deal with such things. Blue dwarf could also redirect to Dwarf star with Blue compact dwarf galaxy included under "see also". Thincat (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really an expert in the procedures here. Maybe a redirect will be a better solution than a total delete. Tomer T (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to red dwarf. It's a valid scientific conjecture that is relevant to long term projections about the future of the Universe. Note: here is another reference by Adams, Graves, and Laughlin (2004). Regards, RJH (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment (I !voted above). Yes, this would also be a perfectly good target. The various articles need a general sort out. Thincat (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to one of the above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge and redirect. This is a valid scientific hypothesis so it is a stretch call it non-notable.  I'd prefer to keep the article but a valid alternative is to redirect to its own section in red dwarf or dwarf star. Robert Brockway (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see many similarities between this article and black dwarf, which should obviously be kept. As it stands, this article's subject is a very valid scientific hypothesis that there is evidence for. Needs expansion, for sure, but definitely notable. StringTheory11 03:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer Keep, but merge with red dwarf is ok.It's certainly notable to people interested in astronomy.Rich (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "It's certainly notable" - what's the rational? Did it really live any impact on astronomy science apart from being a theory raised by three scientists? Tomer T (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2012 (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.