Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 74438


 * 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. The article has been fixed to describe its subject only. (non-admin closure) — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

HD 74438

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Which star is this about? There is information from HD 74438 (the article title) and HD 74389 (the bold term in the lead), all mixed together. One of these stars is likely notable, the other I'm not so sure. WP:TNT; this is more work to try and fix than to start again, and would likely lead to misleading redirects lying about. Currently an orphan, although HD 74389 is in the template:Ursa Major navbox. Lithopsian (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * After a bit more research, article HD 74389 already exists and HD 74438 appears to be a stillborn clone of it. Perhaps  will clarify if this article is a work in progress or just a mistake.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * NO. Don't delete. (Do I, the creator of the article, get a vote?)


 * It is definitely a work in progress. I tagged it with an "Expert needed" tag, and put a discussion on the Talk Page. I think this is an interesting example of a quadruble star, because it is young, and because it is likely unstable. It seems as though it will destroy itself in a few megayears, due to the high eccentricity of the orbits.


 * My hope and expectation was that some astronomer, who is an expert Wikipedian editor, would help rectify my unintentional errors. I did indeed copy the HD74389 article as it would have the proper tags to place this in the constellation of astronomy Wikipedia articles, about which I know nothing. I am following the dictum "be bold".


 * I also find it puzzling that it is tagged as an "Orphan". Of course it is an orphan, it is not even 24 hours old. With hope I assumed that an astronomer interested in the star cluster IC 2391 would link this article. Nick Beeson (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about astronomy to come down on either side of this debate, but I do know a good amount about Wikipedia orphans. Orphaned articles are just ones that don't have any other article linking to them that are in the main space. Editors add tags for any problems an article may have. The goal of the tag is to increase traction and get editors to fix any of the problems it is having. So an article being labelled an orphan isn't a negative thing, its just here to increase visibility to other editors. Herravondure (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks Herravondure. I started editing Wikipedia so long ago that when the "Orphan article" tag first appeared all such tagged articles were years old. This gave me the false idea that that tag should only be applied to articles that had had several years to be linked. Since this had not happened in years it was an indication that they were not "notable" and should be deleted. Nick Beeson (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep for now as at least slightly notable. It has been the subject of a news story and a few scientific papers, mostly by the same authors. Praemonitus (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability – several focused journal articles and at least one in more "mainstream" media – and offer potential for expansion comparable to articles on similar star systems. The issue of overlapping content or confusion with HD 74389 has been resolved, so TNT no longer applies. ComplexRational (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. As a very rare quadruple star system, it is obviously notable. Sbierwagen (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Content irrelevant to the article topic has been removed. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 21:27, 6 June 2022 (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.