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 Cancer (constellation). Compromise between keep and delete; no need for a fourth relist. (non-admin closure) J947^{(c) (m)} 20:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

71 Cancri[edit]

71 Cancri (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)

This star was already included in the List of stars in Cancer that generally indicates notability for a star. However, I can't find anything notable about it and suggest it be deleted and removed from that list. It is well below naked-eye visibility, not variable, not multiple, no known exoplanets. Simbad gives a grand total of seven published papers mentioning 71 Cnc, all of them as about large groups of stars that happen to include this one. Lithopsian (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to withdraw this proposal since I now believe that it meets WP:NASTCRIT, but I don't know if that is appropriate given the opinions that have been expressed already? Lithopsian (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Cancer (constellation) - the article is only a brief one, and a merge with the larger article should not prove difficult. Vorbee (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  A merge wouldn't be difficult but would be inappropriate. The constellation article does briefly describe several of the most notable stars, but cannot be expected to reference even a fraction of the thousands of non-notable ones within its borders. There is a List of stars in Cancer that might be expected to be a better target for a redirect (it already has the essential details on 71 Cnc) but the list only contains stars which are considered notable enough to merit an article (one day). Hence any decision that an 71 Cnc is not notable would mean it is removed from the list. I think the choice is between keep and delete. I will try to rustle up some more comments, or the article may become an unopposed deletion. Lithopsian (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NASTRO, no substantial coverage in any sources. Modest Genius ^talk 11:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative keep per WP:NASTRO #4. Tentative, because I am not sure NASTRO #4 should really apply to stars (rather than asteroids). Google Scholar returns quite a few matches around 1820-1830, for instance this (skip to 1821, 15 Feb.), though I could not check most of them (the Harvard site makes it impossible to efficiently search the text). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe criterion #4 applies to everything, not just asteroids. 71 Cancri was named in 1720/5. By that criterion all Flamsteed designation stars are automatically notable, although obviously some of them are not very interesting :) Lithopsian (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, that is precisely my problem: when it comes to stars, #4 looks too broad to me. But in the current state of guidelines, the article is a keep... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Those criteria do not supersede WP:GNG, as is stated underneath them.--Pontificalibus (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Cancer (constellation) per WP:NASTCRIT as there aren't sufficient in-depth sources to establish notability.--Pontificalibus (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Cancer (constellation) cannot be a grab-bag mentioning all the thousands of non-notable stars in the constellation. It would be fairly impractical for it even to mention all 83 of the Flamsteed-designated stars. Seems like it should mention the more notable objects, not the less notable ones. Lithopsian (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This seems a pointless waste of time to me. It has an entry on List of stars in Cancer, which includes almost all the information in the article anyway. Rather than merging a thousand tiny objects into a main article which can't cope with them all, just keep them on the list. (the list can be improved and linked to Cancer (constellation), as it is currently looking rather forgotten. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 13:49, 28 September 2017 (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.