Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGTS-1

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 keep. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 14:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NGTS-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. Mentioned in the discovery paper of its exoplanet and just about nowhere else. Some secondary coverage of the exoplanet discovery from a few years ago, nothing since. Faint, nothing particularly unusual about the star or its planet. Lithopsian (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable because of its relative size compared with its exoplanet, as reported here. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - but it needs a substantial rewrite. Phrases like "which is usually impossible" are more sensational than informative. Instead of citing the "factslegend.org" webpage, the paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.11099 should be cited. But I think notability can be established for this systemPopePompus (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep multiple writers are covering this so passed WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2021 (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.