RX Telescopii: .  1. It is not visible to the naked eye (the cutoff was set at 6.0),  2. it is not in any high-importance catalog ( see the RX Telescopii page on SIMBAD ),  3. it was never the subject of non-trivial works and  4. it was not discovered before 1850.  SIMBAD cites 21 references for this star, but they are only large catalogs that cite hundreds to millions of objects.  .  Although this is a deletion discussion, I suggest merging into List of stars in Telescopium , for saving page history.  Deletion discussions generally have a larger participation than merge discussions and hence a more well-defined consensus.  InTheAstronomy32 ( talk ) 18:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions .  InTheAstronomy32 ( talk ) 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think the fact that it was considered one of the largest known stars is significant - the recalculating of it as a smaller object helps readers understand how scientists come to conclusions, realise they're incorrect with further information.  The historical claim will be lost on any list page.  Cas Liber ( talk · contribs ) 19:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think this information can be added to the List of largest known stars article.  using the angular diameter and a distance of 2189 parsecs, which is corrected for removing the excess of astrometric noise.  [5] .  Then, it can be added to the article.  InTheAstronomy32 ( talk ) 19:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Problem is the star's latest and most accurate diameter means it is too small for the list unless slotted into the somwhat arbitrary "The following well-known stars are listed for the purpose of comparison." section.  I'd prefer to keep the article as is where information is in one place.  .  from Gaia DR3, because they are consistent with the star's spectral type (Other stars with similar spectral types like Antares , Betelgeuse , RW Cygni , VV Cephei have similar sizes), and the Gaia's radius uses a spectrum-derived distance, but User:SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer told that these spectra are generally of very low resolution (50×50px) and can lead to misleading values.  InTheAstronomy32 ( talk ) 12:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of stars in Telescopium or List of largest known stars .  There is very little substantial information published for "RX Tel"; hardly enough to satisfy WP:GNG .  Praemonitus ( talk ) 12:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or Delete .  This is just another catalog object that has been WP:OR 'd into what looks like something important but is really just a grab bag of catalog entries.  - Parejkoj ( talk ) 15:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: We have editors arguing for Delete, Keep, Merging and Redirection, so another week/days of discussion is warranted.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect List of largest stars or delete .  User:Hamterous1 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ ) 00:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of largest stars as {{ R to list entry }} : this star does not currently meet WP:GNG / WP:NASTRO but is mentioned in the appropriate list.  I support List of largest stars as a target over List of stars in Telescopium because its large size is the reason why people would search for it, not the fact that it is in Telescopium.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 12:32, 29 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect