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 XO-6b. The "merge" opinions have the better arguments. The first "keep" admits that any notability of this star derives from its exoplanet XO-6b, and the second and third "keep" make no sense. Sandstein 13:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XO-6[edit]

XO-6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Uncited article with no claims to notability. Faint, unremarkable star. Has a known exoplanet, but then who doesn't. Fails WP:GNG. Lithopsian (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 17:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The planet XO-6b meets WP:NASTRO with significant coverage in three papers - [1], [2], [3] - and as I've argued before, if there is an article on an exoplanet there should be an article on its host star. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page was incomplete, so why bother deleting it now it's complete? 400Weir (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with XO-6b, as discussed before [4]. @Lithopsian: I really think it would be more productive to discuss a general policy to deal with stars that have exoplanets instead of AfD'ing each one individually. Tercer (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start such a discussion. I've tried and got nowhere, perhaps you will get further. I suspect the end result will still be the same: articles to be deleted will still need to be discussed and opinions will still be all over the place with relatively little reference to the policy. Lithopsian (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I posted it at WT:ASTRONOMY, let's see if this time people get engaged. Tercer (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of a merge, the merge target should be XO-6 - see comments by me and User:PopePompus at the linked AfD. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Tercer (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Jim.henderson (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for the reasons given by Tercer.PopePompus (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reasons as above. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with XO-6b. It is the planet really which is notable here - there are quite literally trillions of stars, but only those with additional features or characteristics that we have detected (e.g. exoplanets!) are notable. Personally I think it would make more sense to have the article at XO-6 to allow for the addition of information about other planets in its system if and when they are discovered, but that is ultimately a minor concern. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are fast getting to the stage where detected exoplanets are becoming the norm for any star within a distance where exoplanets are detectable, so even that notability is becoming dubious. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're way beyond the stage where being or having and exoplanet is in itself notable. However, the case has been made for this exoplanet being notable and nobody seems inclined to argue that it isn't. Lithopsian (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please stop relisting. The consensus is clear, the only thing notable is the exoplanet XO-6b, the star itself has no claim to notability. Nobody disputed this. Tercer (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to XO-6b, the star is just a regular one, but the planet clearly meets WP:GNG, so a merge is warranted. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:17, 10 March 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.