Deletion of Gliese 167

Comment: into appropriate list. The users above are misinterpreting . If an object is in a catalog of interest to amateur astronomers then it likely passes NASTRO. Catalogs of interest to professionals don't count in this regard. I downloaded the two papers cited in this article, and Gliese 167 was not singled out for any special coverage or investigation. It was studied along with 225 other stars in the first paper, and with 152 other stars in the second paper. No singular coverage was given, so no evidence of notability is presented here. Waving your arms and saying |it is useful isn't an argument.  is clear that notability isn't inherited, so distance is irrelevant, and the consensus from WikiProject Astronomical Objects is that a distance cutoff for notability isn't necessary. Cheers
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NASTRO||WP:ITSUSEFUL||WP:NASTRO)