Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G0.238-0.071

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 most luminous stars. The anchor can be handled editorially Star Mississippi 16:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G0.238-0.071 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Only one paper appears to mention it explicitly, however, that one only mentioned it three times in the exact same section. Because of this, it fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 15:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is still probably the most luminous known star that is not an erupting LBV. Maybe redirect it to List of most luminous stars? Diamantinasaurus (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good idea. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 13:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: being the most luminous non-variable star known should be enough to make this more than a line in a list. Owen× ☎ 19:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a luminosity estimate in a broader list from a single source (without even an error estimate) isn't enough to establish notability. Per the above and the Sagan standard, I think we should require confirmation from an independent study before allowing the extraordinary claim that this is the "most luminous non-variable star known". Praemonitus (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the luminous star list seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of most luminous stars and create an anchor where the star is mentioned; the current amount of coverage is not enough to establish notability and justify an article, although this might change in the future if more studies on the star are released. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:18, 10 January 2024 (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.