Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gliese 250


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Gliese 250

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Not visible to the naked eye, and no significant coverage in studies. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to keep this one - it's pretty close to us and is only just below the magic 6th magnitude marker. this suggests it has been the subject of some discussion already (as a binary system there'd be accurate material on how massive the system is somewhere, which is better than single star systems). It is touched on in 134 references (yes I know most will be sparse at best, but together I think there is enough material to get an article with the equivalent level of detail as the Solstation one, which is interesting) Sorry, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll admit this one is one of the more borderline stars, with how close it is to being visible to the naked eye. I can definitely see the reasoning on this one, even though I myself would personally still like it deleted. W/e we'll just see how consensus goes on this one (In addition to Cygnus and Perseus I'm doing a lot of nearby star cleanup right now, since I have a lot of free time atm). StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: I think there's just barely enough mentions as "HD 50281" in the journals to justify a keep. Praemonitus (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2014 (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.