Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gliese 505


 * 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. Moving as desired can be done through the normal process. The Bushranger One ping only 00:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Gliese 505

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I did see a few scholarly references with details regarding "HD 115404", including Shimansky et al (2011). Praemonitus (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, if it turns out that this article is kept, it should be moved to HD 115404 then. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Praemonitus (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. A published paper with one of this star's names in its title, and a higher number of other papers that mention it non-trivially (not just in a list of many similar stars) makes this one stand out among the recent Gliese AfDs as being somewhat more notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 08:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per David Eppstein. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:28, 11 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.