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 merge to FU Tauri. (non-admin closure) buidhe 04:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FU Tauri b[edit]

FU Tauri b (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NASTRO: not naked-eye; not discovered before 1850; not in general-interest catalogues; doesn't have multiple published journal papers (as a planet, see later). The catalogues given here as references appear to include this object on the basis of its borderline gas-giant mass, although I can't find peer-reviewed papers describing it as such. The discovery paper referenced here describes FU Tauri (article just created) as a binary brown dwarf, and it may be notable on that basis. Lithopsian (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, as I am the page author, I might have a certain level of bias, however I believe that FU Tauri b is indeed notable on the basis you described and is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Golem08 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd favor deleting this article and merging the information about FU Tau b into a section of the article on Fu Tau. In cases where there's very low or questionable notability about a planet, rather than giving each exoplanet its own article, it would make more sense to include the information on planets as part of the article about the star. Aldebarium (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge If the article is to be deleted, it would make sense to merge the information into the star and leave a redirect. (Would still prefer to keep.) Golem08 (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Although I do think that the exoplanet (or brown dwarf) does meet GNG, for instance see [1] and [2], it should still be merged to the main article because all references are with respect to the binary system. Note that previous source searches might have had a hard time because the star/planet is typically referred to as "FU Tau b" not "FU Tauri b." Sam-2727 (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2020 (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.