Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WISE J154459.27+584204.5

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 redirect to List of brown dwarfs. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WISE J154459.27+584204.5

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable astronomical object. Completely fails WP:NASTRO. Even the single real source has little more than a single row in a table on this object. The article is several months old and shows no sign of being improved in sourcing or conversion of the lede to Plain English. I'll admit to not being an expert in the field, but there doesn't appear to be any claim of notability in the article (I'll admit I could have misplaced it among the jargon). (Depending on the outcome of this AfD, I may nominate other members of Category:WISE objects for deletion at a later date). Stuartyeates (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NASTRO and WP:MAPOUTCOMES. I did not find any published sources referring in depth to this object. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as the guideline you cite says to do. "This guideline does not prohibit the creation or maintenance of list articles which contain tables of properties and information related to astronomical objects. However, such lists are still subject to Wikpedia's content policies, such as verifiability and no original research." See WP:NASTHELP, which specifies that AfD is only the last resort if redirecting/merging to a list is for some reason unsuitable, such as the information being unverifiable. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of brown dwarfs per DGG. This object seems to be 75 light-years from meeting WP:GNG so a stand-alone article is not justified. Sideways713 (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Were this brown dwarf estimated to be within 50 light-years I would support the article as one of the closest brown dwarfs known. -- Kheider (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 17:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of brown dwarfs. Plausible search term, and redirects are cheap. WP:NASTRO recommends redirecting.--xanchester (t) 00:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete nothing to distinguish this from many other stars. WP not an astronomical catalogue. No convinced this is interesting enough to warrant a redirect.--Salix (talk): 10:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect notability guidlines do not apply here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing especially notable about this particular brown dwarf. In addition, I have my doubts about the entire list of brown dwarfs page. It lists about 50 stars, and there are over 600 known brown dwarfs. The list seems completely haphazard, with no reason given for why those fifty stars are included. As such, there's no need to toss one more random brown dwarf onto the list. PianoDan (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate list of WISE objects, or Brown Dwarf objects. There are a host of articles just like this one, with nearly identical text, all from one reference. None of the objects are notable. AstroCog (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.