Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of least massive stars

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 brown dwarfs. This is just a redirect, not a merge, due to the expressed concerns about the reliability of the information here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of least massive stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

There are multiple problems with this list. One, it is completely

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unmaintainable
  WP:LISTCRUFT. WP is not an astronomy data repository. shoy (reactions) 13:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete – with about 70 billion brown dwarfs in the Milky Way alone, the task of fully populating this list is hopeless. We've already got a list of nearby stars and brown dwarfs. Praemonitus (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This list is a bit misguided, as there are theoretical limits to a star's mass - below 13 Jupiter masses, it won't fuse deuterium, and so won't really be a star. (At least, in my very limited understanding.) One therefore expects that the least massive stars will all weigh about 13 M_J. However I would caution that, as this article has had a lot of work put into it for ten years, someone should make sure that all the information is appropriately represented in lists such as list of brown dwarfs, before just deleting it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, a redirect to list of brown dwarfs would be reasonable, and allow the edit history to be preserved. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list is not properly cited; for all we know the information presented may be hopelessly unreliable. Praemonitus (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:V requires only that sources for everything exist somewhere, not that everything that lacks proper citations be deleted immediately. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2015 (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.