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. Without prejudice to a later redirect e.g. to a list of similar items. Sandstein 07:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

74 Cancri

[edit]

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

Per http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1987JHA....18..209W&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf , this star does not exist. Without a Flamsteed designation, the star clearly fails WP:NASTRO.StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: whether the article is kept or nor (I leave that to those who, unlike me, actually know the subject), a scientific term that appears in numerous catalogs should redirect somewhere even if it can be shown not to exist. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps all the nonexistent stars listed in that article (and other ones like them, if any) should be listed at (and redirect to) article Hypothetical star#Specific stars. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I could find, this is the only one that is actually nonexistant that has an article on Wikipedia. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then redirecting 74 Cancri there is still worthwhile—lists do not have to be exhaustive. Or, someone knowledgeable should create an article about spurious stars, where 74 Cancri et al. (to be created as fellow redirects) can redirect. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One possible source: [1] (one of the sources mentioned in the article cited by the nominator). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of whether it's the same star as the supposedly-nonexistent Flamsteed one, SIMBAD does return some results for HD 78347. But I'm not seeing the in-depth coverage in reliable sources that would pass WP:NASTRO. The five hits I get all are studies of thousands of stars rather than anything specific to this one or to a small set of stars that includes this one. I don't think a merge to Hypothetical star is warranted because there is no reason to single this one out over the many other ones with similar situations. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem notable so far. AAA3AAA (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Meets Wikipedia:NASTRO Criteria 1. Object noted in 1887: [2] (an also in prior Catalogs) but later lost or misplaced due to error. Perhaps a new catalog of lost stars should be created to include this one plus 80 Herculis, 81 Herculis, 56 Cancri, 19 Persei, 108 Poscium, 73 Cancri, 74 Cancri, 8 Hydrae, 26 Cancri, 62 Orionis, 71 Hercules, 19 Comae Berenices and 34 Comae Berenices: see also Gore, John Ellard (1907). Astronomical Essays Historical and Descriptive. Chatto & Windus. - Kyle^(talk) 07:47, 20 August 2014 (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.