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. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AZ Cephei (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)

Fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. It is a faint slightly variable red supergiant with no journal coverage specific to this star or a small number of stars including this one. The article makes a claim to notability on the basis of having a modestly large although quite uncertain radius. I tried to redirect to List of largest stars, but this was reverted. Lithopsian (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NASTRO. Aldebarium (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of largest stars per your original suggestion. This does not meet WP:NASTRO but there is no compelling need to delete the page history. I do have to chuckle at the sheepishly selfconscious use of Quora as a source though. If the result is redirect, and people still undo it, we can approach the closing admin to protect the redirect. Reyk _YO! 16:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per all of the other discussions on pages linking to "largest stars" Sam-2727 (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2020 (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.