Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TYC 3541-945-1


 * 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. consensus shows it fails relevant notability guidelines and the naming is a clear WP:NOTNEWS. Secret account 01:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

TYC 3541-945-1

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is likely to fail Notability (astronomical objects) (excluding some trivia entries, for to be forgotten soon, in media -- and they are about "naming", not about the star properly). "Naming" isn't official as per. Trivia mention may be made in the article about the chant. -- Postoronniy-13 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete; fails to meet WP:NASTRO. Not visible to the naked eye, no significant coverage in studies, and not in a catalogue of note. A small note in the article about the chant may be useful, but not a separate article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The star has been covered by mainstream international media in Ireland, Belarus , Ukraine , Russia , and US . USchick (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but since the only notable fact about this star is its unofficial name (the IAU has not and is not likely to approve it for official use), it would seem, that per WP:Notability (astronomical objects), the star should certainly be mentioned in the chant's article itself, but a separate article for the star is not necessary. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NASTCRIT #3, there's plenty of notability in international media coverage, making it culturally significant. If you haven't looked at the article lately, I invite you to do so. I expanded it and added sources. USchick (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NASTCRIT. A mention in the article about the song is sufficient.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a mention. Seven articles are cited where the entire article is about the planet and its new name. Six of the articles mention it in the title. Five countries are reporting about it. USchick (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is ok, but they only mention the unofficial name in relation to the song, nothing else. Btw it would be good to know for the closing admin that, judging from your talk page, you are a strong partisan supporter.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol, what exactly is a "partisan supporter"? Are your trying to say I'm a supporter of astronomy? Well, I like watching the stars, but that's about it. The star was not notable at all until it was named. The new name is what makes it notable. In five different countries. So far. It just got named, so other countries may become interested. Give it time. USchick (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The star is present in the catalog nonprofit international organization "White Dwarf Research Corporation", and its number fixes the Kepler Input Catalog. --Jeromjerom (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The WDRC is not even a catalogue, and even if it were, it would certainly not be considered notable. The KIC catalogue is certainly not a notable catalogue, considering it consists of stars that might have a possibility of having planets, not even stars that just have a possibility. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: There are editors who know the standards for notability of stars much better than I, and the closing admin should pay attention closely to their opinions over all others.  Of course the star can be mentioned at Putin khuilo! but that meme doesn't mean we need multiple articles on that; indeed readers are benefited by one comprehensive article on the meme.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep not a particular notable star but it got some notoriety due to its controversial naming that was covered by many sources. Do not see any reasons to remove the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's "not a particular notable star", then that would suggest that a mention in the parent article is sufficient per WP:Notability (astronomical objects), in this case the song's article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly fails our established notability criteria for astronomical objects. Our guideline says that notoriety gained by a naming convention only means that the information could reside in an article about the name/song/person/whatever. In this case, information about the star may be included in Putin khuilo!. The sources referenced say that the naming "organization" is a non-profit that allows individuals to name a star for $10. It's not official, and certainly won't be accepted by any professional astronomers or even amateur catalogues. WP:NASTRO is pretty clear about this. Merge the info into the song article, but delete this one. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * delete/merge fails WP:NASTRO. It's only famous for the cultural reference, which conveniently already has its own article Putin khuilo!.  The star itself is utterly unremarkable.  Sailsbystars (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Has anyone read the criteria? Notability (astronomical objects) #3 has been met. Also see this part "Important Note: These criteria do not supersede WP:N." USchick (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the meme famous for naming a star or the star famous for starting a meme? It's clearly the former, hence why there's an article about the meme and shouldn't be one about the star.  Sailsbystars (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The star is famous now. Is it up to us to question why? USchick (talk) 18:29, 11 July 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.