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 stars in Taurus. The edit history is preserved so anyone is free to merge content. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 169[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of stars in Taurus. It gets a few brief mentions in journal articles, but usually as a comparison star. There's not really enough content to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a combined article, possibly on near solar class K stars. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of stars in Taurus per WP:NASTRO. We already have a list of nearby stars and this one isn't near enough to be interesting in that respect. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2013 (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.