Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 118598


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

HD 118598

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable as per WP:NASTRO. Well below naked eye brightness, no publications specifically concerning this star, just a handful of entries in large surveys. One implicit claim to notability might be the solar analog angle, although the article itself (own research?) appears to nix the idea and there is no supporting citation. Lithopsian (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * * Transwiki to Wikiversity I generally consider myself as an inclusionist especially when coming to subjects regarding astronomical objects and hacker incidents. But in this case I think that this article is better suited as a material on Wikiversity where original research are allowed. We haven't developed even a decent form of interstellar travel to explore the nearest star Proxima Centauri as of 2017, let alone the subject star and its surroundings so who knows if someone found something significant near the star (ranging from an exoplanet to something outlandish like a suspected Dyson sphere, remember the Tabby's star?). If something significant is found regarding the star, more power to the folks at Wikiversity on whether to transwiki it back to here or not, the period from the time I offered this opinion to the time when something significant or two is found regarding the star may range from days to even centuries or longer. In the case of the period spanning a range of decades, centuries or even longer, I would seriously doubt that whether Wikipedia or even the whole Wikimedia project would remain strong beyond the foreseeable future because of my experience with some deletionist editors when they nominated to delete the first articles I've created on here. I even considered to leave Wikipedia for good and try to tell every other people who may think to start a Wikipedia article. In fact, I think that they are slowly ruining the Wikipedia project by turning it into a Britannica 2.0, an antithesis of Jimmy Wale's ideals. But for now, in January 4th of year 2017, it's WP:TOOSOON on Wikipedia to include the subject as a separate article. Thank you. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean Jimmy Wales, and, if he has any principles, they are not necessarily Wikipedia's principles, which are decided by the editing community within very broad parameters decided by the Wikimedia Foundation. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I may only agree with you on only one thing that the subject doesn't have enough significance to gain a consensus to include it as a separate Wikipedia article yet, but if only delete the article itself, people would have to exhaustively use Google to put together information regarding this star, potentially damaging user experience of the researcher. In this case, I repeat my position that it'll be transwikied to Wikiversity.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikiversity is a Wikimedia Foundation project devoted to learning resources, learning projects, and research for use in all levels, types, and styles of education from pre-school to university, including professional training and informal learning.


 * So what, exactly, does this article have to do with Wikiversity? Where, exactly, would it go? --Calton | Talk 17:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A subpage under the "List of stars" page in the astronomical section in Wikiversity. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Striking vote of blocked user, who was only participating at AfD to make a point. Brad  v  04:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete it, I agree with all points, I see no real errors in the statements. Telecine Guy (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "solar twin" aspect cuts the mustard. What interests people about possible solar twins is that they might have "Earth twins" orbiting them, but the evolutionary history of any possible planet orbiting a star in a multiple star system would be expected to be completely different from that of the Earth. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect: for now I'd suggest redirecting it to Solar analog, where it is listed in a table. Praemonitus (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Praemonitus, it was removed from the list in the solar analog article in October. As I suggested to Astro, a more appropriate redirect would be Star system. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest a Merge/Redirect to a single row in List of stars in Hydra. Praemonitus (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Although a redirect to a list would make some sense, this star is not currently in List of stars in Hydra and that list is specifically of notable stars so almost by definition every star on it is deserving of an article. Lithopsian (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep looks like a solid article about star. It is really a shame this is even considered for deletion. Fotaun (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's 300,000,000 years younger than our star (the Sun). If life on an Earth-like planet orbiting it is following the same timeline as Earth, in 300,000,000 years there will be a sentient being on that planet writing on their Wiki about how 300,000,000 years earlier there was probably a Wiki-building life form here, but bemoaning that we will likely be long gone. It's like ships passing in the night that is 300,000,000 years long. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And the ocean is 900,000,000,000,000 miles wide. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. or redirect to Solar analog.  As the nominator correctly points out, this star fails all notability criteria under WP:NASTRO. As for the solar analog argument, I searched the scholarly literature for mentions of this star, and it has not received significant attention for that (or any other) reason. If we disregard the notability criteria for stars like this, then we'd be flooded with potentially hundreds of millions of stubs which merely duplicate information from astronomical catalogues. As for the proper outcome of this AfD, I don't really have a strong preference between deleting and redirecting. I would support either outcome. Astro4686 (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * HD 118598 fails the solar analog test on a fundamental level because it is part of a multiple star system. It would most appropriately redirect to Star system. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right; I have changed my vote accordingly. Thanks for your reply, Jack. You're correct about not redirecting to Solar analog. I don't see much point in redirecting such a specific object to an article as general as Star system, so I now vote to delete. Astro4686 (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of stars in Hydra. Nothing much about this star attracts attention, the content can easily fit into a row in list of stars in Hydra where I believe it's supposed to have its own (currently nonexistent) row. ~ KN2731 {talk} 15:05, 26 January 2017 (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.