Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V420 Aurigae


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

V420 Aurigae

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't believe this star is notable. The article, excluding the infobox, is only two sentences long. None of the references are exclusively about this star or a small number of stars including this star. I find no articles in SIMBAD that cover this star in depth. The references in the International Variable Star Index entry for this star don't cover the star in depth, Google returns nothing much, it's not visible to the naked eye. PopePompus (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. PopePompus (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ooops, SIMBAD does list at least one paper about this star, under its BD catalog name: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1990A%26A...231..354P . I still don't think the star is notable.PopePompus (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. I could expand it. Also, I'll deal with notability. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 15:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: it has been the subject of four scientific papers and is mentioned in multiple others. That's more than many of the star articles on Wikipedia. Praemonitus (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, enough papers written about it to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2021 (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.