Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gliese 167


 * 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. Discussion about merger can take place at talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Gliese 167

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 05:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep Deletionists will all die, but Gliese 167 will still be there. Seriously, it's useful information, I needed to look this up today. Bryce (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I read the wp:nastro page and it said if it is found in catalogues it is worth including. The sources seem to suggest it is included and of some interest. Admittedly, I may be misinterpreting the guideline, but a star seems worth keeping. Do we know when and who discovered it? Is it observable with the naked eye? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bryce. It's only 43 ly away, which makes it quite close, as these things go. Warden (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into appropriate list. The users above are misinterpreting WP:NASTRO. If an object is in a catalog of interest to amateur astronomers then it likely passes NASTRO. Catalogs of interest to professionals don't count in this regard. I downloaded the two papers cited in this article, and Gliese 167 was not singled out for any special coverage or investigation. It was studied along with 225 other stars in the first paper, and with 152 other stars in the second paper. No singular coverage was given, so no evidence of notability is presented here. Waving your arms and saying it is useful isn't an argument. WP:NASTRO is clear that notability isn't inherited, so distance is irrelevant, and the consensus from WikiProject Astronomical Objects is that a distance cutoff for notability isn't necessary. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2013 (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.