Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CM Velorum

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 largest stars. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CM Velorum

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable star, failing WP:NASTRO, of course. References to it are just catalogues containing lots of stars, so not significant coverage. Redirecting to the list of largest known stars also do seem to be an option. 21 Andromedae (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; couldn't find any in-depth research in literature, only short mentions and entries in catalogues. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 12:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got an email saying page was reviewed an hour ago and nothing has happened. What does this mean? LobedHomunculus (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Page Curation, may help 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest stars where it is already listed. It gets briefly mentioned in a couple of studies, but not enough to satisfy the need for substantial coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. If more research is done, then this can be re-created. Bearian (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per reasons above. Svartner (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of largest stars because it may be one of the largest known stars. Or delete because this star does not pass the notability criterion for astronomical objects at WP:NASTCRIT:

It is not visible to the naked eye (WP:NASTCRIT#1).
It is not listed in a catalogue of high historical importance or a catalogue of high interest to amateur astronomers (WP:NASTCRIT#2).
It has not has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on it (WP:NASTCRIT#3).
It was discovered as part of the Digitized Sky Survey 2, after 2006 (DSS1 was between 1983 and 2006). So, it was not discovered before 1850 (WP:NASTCRIT#4). - tucoxn\^talk 09:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was discovered after 2006, then why is it in the Henry Draper Catalogue? LobedHomunculus (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LobedHomunculus: excellent question! I don't see it in the Henry Draper Catalogue. Here is a list of the 193 objects in the Vela constellation that are in the Henry Draper Catalogue. If you search for the name "HD 88028" (one of CM Velorum's other names) within that list, you will not find it. Seems like "Category:Henry Draper Catalogue objects" might have been added to that article by mistake. But, this article says it's in the Henry Draper and Hipparcos catalogues, so, I'm very willing to admit that I might be wrong about my assertion. I don't see the Henry Draper catalogue number in Simbad. - tucoxn\^talk 21:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The HD number is the first designation in SIMBAD, HD 88028. 21 Andromedae (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2025 (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.