This article was nominated fordeletion on 17 July 2016. The result ofthe discussion wasno consensus.

This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Astronomy:Astronomical objectsLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related toAstronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byWikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related toastronomical objects.

Does anyone have anything at all to say about this star other than that it exists and has a long list of catalogue numbers? I'm about to propose that it be deleted. It is variable and I'm a big fan of variable stars, but that in itself isn't sufficient. It wasn't in the self-consistent list of notable stars of Perseus (and every other constellation) compiled a few years ago, which is always a clue that we don't need an article for it.Lithopsian (talk)15:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE I think it's important to have as many articles is possible, especially as the information on this page is arguably easier to understand and to read that the data on SIMBAD.— Precedingunsigned comment added by88.109.188.99 (talk)15:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barely notable. There's a study[1] and it's mentioned in a few papers. It should be mentioned that this is a confirmed spectroscopic binary.[2]Praemonitus (talk)15:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/XX_Persei, one comment could have swung it. I've expanded it now. That doesn't make it any more notable, but at least it isn't a one-line stub any more. Has Gaia parallax now, 2,000 parsecs plus or minus about 300, so consistent with expectations. Doesn't seem to bhe anything else interesting published in the last few years.Lithopsian (talk)16:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just modified the article to reference two separate companion stars: an unseen hot spectroscopic companion and a rather distant visual companion. The article previously described these two as one object. However, the literature isn't clearcut on this. Many sources list a spectroscopic companion, described for example as "syncretic" so necessarily a close binary. Possibly spectral classes of "B7V and A have been offered. Other sources list the long-known and likely unrelated star BD+54°445 as a companion. This isn't an A or B7 star, and it couldn't possibly be described as syncretic, so presumably two separate objects although I can't find a single source that mentions them both as separate objects. To confuse matters Proust et al (1981) list XX Persei as M4Ib + B7V with the companion at 20.5". Is this just a typo and additionally confusion between the combined spectral class for the spectroscopic binary and the unrelated distant companion? I've assumed so, but it is less than obvious.Lithopsian (talk)17:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Start-Class Astronomy articles
• Low-importance Astronomy articles
• Start-Class Astronomy articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Astronomical objects articles
• Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)