Deletion of Gliese 146

Comment: as per Graeme Bartlett. Warden's vote falls under , as does most of Robert's. I don't see why we should delete the article altogether; precedent is to have list articles of non-notable planets, and I think doing the same for these sorts of stars is a good idea
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Information in the article is just a listing of technical data. Sources on the SIMBAD pages show no special interest in this object - it was studied along with thousands of others in large-scale surveys. The main "reference" in this article is not a professional source. It's an artist's website, stacked with the previously available (from SIMBAD) technical specs. The 48 papers mentioned above will merely list this object as one of many. None of the papers (that I could tell) singled the object out for special scrutiny - except for perhaps the 1953 paper, in which this object was one of five studied. Nothing here indicates this object would pass , let alone . The one sentence of the article that attempts to establish notability shouldn't be an issue here: notability for astronomical objects is not inherited. Cheers
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NASTRO)

Comment: per RoseL24 and Robertinventor. There is sourced, reliable information about this object, it seems widely cited, and there is no clear benefit to our readers or the encyclopedia in deleting this article. This ongoing effort to delete  perfectly neutral, sourced and meaningful articles only to comply robotically with a guideline seems disruptive to me.  seems to fail in these cases
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NASTRO)

Comment: into list of nearby stars or '''delete''': plainly fails the "significant coverage" component of . There's nothing notable about this particular star; it's just in a potentially-interesting class of objects. —Alex
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)