Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 23356

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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HD 23356

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

I don't think this meets any of the criteria of WP:NASTRO. Although Google Scholar hits do turn up, they are purely incidental and only mention the star in passing. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a prototypical example of the "being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties" clause of WP:NASTRO. Like the nominator, I could not find any non-incidental coverage of this star. I don't think 46ly is close enough to be interesting for its closeness, it's somewhat out of range of the "visible to the naked eye" clause, and its BD catalogue number doesn't give it an early enough provenance for the pre-1850 clause. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the star gets brief mentions in a few papers, but there's not the significant coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Included in lots of surveys of nearby late-type dwarf stars, its SIMBAD search (here) gives 54 references ... all to big survey papers in this this star is one of hundreds, or one of hundreds of comparison objects. If there was anything notable about it (and V = 7.1 doesn't make the definitional bright star cut), it would have turned up there. BSVulturis (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet the criteria at WP:NASTRO as noted, not enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Zad68 20:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Fails all notability guidelines, including WP:NASTRO. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2013 (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.