Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of exoplanets with Bayer designations


 * 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 Draftify‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There is overall agreement that a list at this title shouldn't exist. Editors arguing for draftify hold that the article content could potentially be developed into an adequate list at another title to be determined, and there appears to be minimal opposition to this course of action. signed,Rosguill talk 01:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

List of exoplanets with Bayer designations

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

A random intersection of two characteristics which isn't the subject of study or indepth sources. Exoplanets are "named" after their stars, and the stars may have Bayer designations (which basically means that they are in some of the oldest catalogues). But there is nothing special about this group of exoplanets which would make them a separate subject of study or interest in reliable sources. Fram (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Fram (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, and speedily. Planets can't have Bayer designations, only their parent stars, so it's a ridiculous title for an article.Skeptic2 (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The bad title is my fault. The original title was quite oddly formatted so this was my apparently inadequate reform attempt. Apologies to the page creator and WP Astronomy. jengod (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - "A Bayer designation is a stellar designation in which a specific  star  is identified by... BrigadierG (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: the Bayer designation indicates that the host star is one of the brightest in the night sky, so it is notable in that sense. But otherwise there's no significant correlation between a Bayer designation and a presence of planets. Praemonitus (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * draftify per WP:BITE and likely WP:NLIST. This is indeed incorrectly titled, and the initial title (List of exoplanets that host stars are visible to the naked eye:Bayer designations) also had problems, too. The page can be moved and the single line of prose can be fixed. This list could likely pass NLIST as is or with a bit of modification to something like List of exoplanets around stars with an apparent magnitude less than X for some value of X, or something more appropriate. Here's some quick google results showing some level of coverage of the subject, I have not done a deep dive into sources.
 * Please note, this is also something very recently created and worked on by an editor that started just this month, I think deletion without a chance to improve is too close too WP:BITING the newcomer for my tastes. &mdash;siro&chi;o 23:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * An article that says "Most of these planets are in the dimmer stars of Orion. Unfortunately, not a single one has been discovered in any of the main stars that we can see with the naked eye." is hardly a good source to show coverage of the subject... Just like an article about "They are targeting stars with magnitudes less than 8.4 (remember that fainter stars have higher magnitudes). For comparison, that’s still fainter than the human eye can see (magnitude 6 or less)" is definitely not about this list subject. Which leaves us with this, which, while also discussing some exoplanets around naked-eye visible stars, is not about that, but again about exoplanets within one constellation, no matter if they have a Bayer designation or not (a lot of the article is about Gliese 581, which isn't visible). So no, none of your sources actually is about exoplanets around stars with Bayer designations. Fram (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. Draftifying doesn't generally require NEXIST to be established. Those sources were from quick googling and more of an indication that NLIST would probably be satisfied with some amount of investigation. &mdash;siro&chi;o 08:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I made no comment about draftifying or not, but I don't see how three sources that are not about the subject, can give any indication that NLIST would or wouldn't be satisfied. Fram (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Draftify while a title is sorted out. List of naked-eye stars with exoplanets (where all the stars have articles) might work for me. The present Lists of exoplanets is a redirect to an inappropriate target. Thincat (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A note after reading the additions above. Bayer produced his catalogue of all the stars he could see in 1603, a few years before the telescope was invented so they are all visible to the naked eye. Bayer designation of a star is slightly more objective than "naked-eye" though is much the same thing. Bright stars are of particular interest to astronomers looking for exoplanets because, generally, more is known about the star so the potential for further discoveries is greater. All the stars in the list seem to have articles so the list has a navigational purpose, one of the listing rationales in WP:NLIST. Thincat (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed the redirect target for List of stars with exoplanets to Lists of exoplanets, as the previous target was indeed not accurate. Fram (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Draftify, or retitle if consensus can be achieved on something suitable. This is a tidy, fully-sourced table created in good faith by a new user with an evidenced interest in exoplanets. Maybe it will live in draft purgatory forever with no progress, or maybe some editorial notes and resulting changes to the lede (etc.) will make it suitable for promotion to the big show. Draft space is useful option for developing *editors* (not just specific content) who we'd like to encourage and in my opinion this would appear to be such a case. jengod (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2023 (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.